IEF vs XLK ETF Comparison
Compare IEF and XLK across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between IEF and XLK?
IEF is iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF, while XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF. IEF is tied to Fixed Income; XLK is tied to Equity. XLK is broader by holdings count, with 74 positions versus 16 for IEF. XLK has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | IEF | XLK | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.08% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $42.0B | $121.1B | Fund |
| Holdings | 16 | 74 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | - | 100.4% | Fund |
| Average volume | 10,564,206 | 6,005,380 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Fixed Income | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 4.9% | 26.4% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -6% | -16.1% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.10 | 1.75 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.57 | 1.33 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -2.43 | 2.05 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 33/100 | 55/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 89/100 | 61/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
IEF and XLK are effectively level
IEF and XLK are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate IEF and XLK as of Sep 5, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare IEF and XLK against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience15%89 vs 61IEF +28
- Momentum25%33 vs 55XLK +22
- Value30%45 vs 37IEF +8
- Quality30%70 vs 74XLK +4
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IEF and XLK both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IEFIEF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
IEFIEF on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | IEF | XLK | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $42.0B | $121.1B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 16 | 73 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 10,564,206 | 6,005,380 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 4.9% | 26.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -6% | -16.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.57 | 1.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.10 | 1.75 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, IEF or XLK?
XLK currently has more reported holdings, with 74 positions versus 16.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLK has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLK has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IEF has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
The current AlgovestIQ evidence does not show a clear leader.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IEF | Value 45 vs 37 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day -3% vs 16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | IEF | Risk Resilience 89 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3- Today
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- IEF +3
- 59 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- IEF +13
- 64 vs 51
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when XLK moved ahead of IEF.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.87%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.00%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.03%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.7%, AIQ +1 points).
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | IEF | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.4 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 11.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3% | 16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.2% | 21.4% |
Risk
IEF is the more resilient| Metric | IEF | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.1 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.57 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.43 | 2.05 |
| Max drawdown | -6% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -5.8% | -6.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 4.9% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.5% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better value, IEF or XLK?
IEF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IEF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, IEF or XLK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, IEF or XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 22 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, IEF or XLK?
IEF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IEF on Risk Resilience, by 28 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is IEF more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about IEF and XLK?
IEF: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on IEF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IEF and XLK with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.