IVV vs XLK Stock Comparison
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
IVV leads
IVV leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support IVV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IVV over XLK, 59 versus 56 as of Sep 2, 2026. IVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while XLK holds the stronger momentum profile. IVV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IVV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. IVV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%90 vs 60IVV +30
- Momentum25%47 vs 54XLK +7
- Quality30%77 vs 74Even
- Value30%36 vs 36Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor IVV. IVV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; XLK keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
IVV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IVV and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IVV (iShares Core S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 21% against 7.1%.
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
IVVIVV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
IVVIVV on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IVV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day 7.2% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | IVV | Risk Resilience 90 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IVV and XLK and are excluded from the count.
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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on IVV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1IVV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IVV +3
- 59 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- IVV +4
- 61 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- IVV +10
- 68 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- IVV +3
- 54 vs 51
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.21%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.27%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
IVV leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.46%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1XLK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to IVV's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3IVV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate IVV's advantage entirely.
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 | IVV | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.2 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 14.4 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.2% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.1% | 21% |
Risk
IVV is the more resilient| Metric | IVV | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | 1.96 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IVV or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IVV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 59 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from risk resilience. XLK is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is IVV or XLK the better buy right now?
IVV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IVV over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. IVV leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; XLK leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, IVV or XLK?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, IVV 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, IVV or XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, IVV or XLK?
IVV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IVV on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 IVV more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IVV's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
IVV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the IVV vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to IVV's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; IVV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate IVV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about IVV and XLK?
IVV: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 IVV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IVV 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.