KBWB vs KRE: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
KBWB and KRE are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. KBWB is Invesco KBW Bank ETF, while KRE is State Street SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF. KRE is broader by holdings count, with 160 positions versus 29 for KBWB. KBWB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has KRE ahead on AIQ Score, 69 versus 62.
What is the main difference between KBWB and KRE?
KBWB and KRE both concentrate in Financial Services, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 13% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | KBWB | KRE |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 29 | 160 |
| Top-10 concentration | 61% | 14.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.09% | 2.24% |
| Average volume | 2,057,849 | 13,506,045 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.9% | +17.8% |
| YTD return | +5.8% | +11.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.3% | +2.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 20.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -14.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -49.3% | -52.7% |
| Beta | 0.90 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 69/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 76/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco KBW Bank ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF
KRE leads
KRE leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support KRE, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco KBW Bank ETF
State Street SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KRE over KBWB, 69 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. KRE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. KRE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor KRE today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. KRE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco KBW Bank ETF and State Street SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
KBWB vs KRE: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | KBWB | KRE | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 29 | 160 | KRE |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 61% | 14.1% | KRE |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.09% | 2.24% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -49.3% | -52.7% | KBWB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.8% | 20.4% | Similar |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare KBWB and KRE 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.
- Momentum58 vs 76KRE +18
- Quality59 vs 65KRE +6
- Risk Resilience72 vs 75Even
- Value65 vs 65Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor KRE. KRE’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
KRE's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KBWB and KRE both carry a full feed there.
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 | KBWB | KRE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 29 | 160 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,057,849 | 13,506,045 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 20.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -14.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.74 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.90 | 0.59 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
KBWB and KRE share 12.91% of their weighted exposure across 10 common holdings.
15 holdings are unique to KBWB, and 148 holdings are unique to KRE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
KBWB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 60.99% of the fund, against 14.11% for KRE (29 holdings vs 160). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | KBWB | KRE | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFGCitizens Financial Group Inc | 3.25% | 1.41% | 1.41% |
| MTBM&T Bank Corp | 3.86% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| PNFPPinnacle Financial Partners Inc | 1.65% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| RFRegions Financial Corp | 2.82% | 1.38% | 1.38% |
| TFCTruist Financial Corp | 3.78% | 1.33% | 1.33% |
| EWBCEast West Bancorp Inc | 1.96% | 1.33% | 1.33% |
| FHNFIRST HORIZON CORP | 1.3% | 1.31% | 1.3% |
| HBANHuntington Bancshares Inc/OH | 3.7% | 1.3% | 1.3% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What KBWB adds that KRE doesn’t
| Holding | KBWB | KRE |
|---|---|---|
| BACBank of America Corp | 8.77% | Not held |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 8.54% | Not held |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co | 8.34% | Not held |
| MSMorgan Stanley | 7.39% | Not held |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 7.19% | Not held |
| STTState Street Corp | 4.45% | Not held |
What KRE adds that KBWB doesn’t
| Holding | KRE | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| CFRCULLEN/FROST BANKERS INC | 1.48% | Not held |
| SSBSOUTHSTATE BANK CORP | 1.44% | Not held |
| HOMBHOME BANCSHARES INC | 1.42% | Not held |
| CBSHCOMMERCE BANCSHARES INC | 1.4% | Not held |
| ASBASSOCIATED BANC CORP | 1.39% | Not held |
| UMBFUMB FINANCIAL CORP | 1.39% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
KBWB vs KRE: five-year payout growth
KBWB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.36% a year against KRE's 1.93%.
| Dividend metric | KBWB | KRE |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.36% | 1.93% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.323 | $1.443 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.717 | $1.587 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #91 of 138 | #121 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor KRE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KRE | 62 vs 69 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 65 |
| Technicals | KRE | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -0.1%; vs 200-day 0.3% vs 1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 72 vs 75 |
| 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 KBWB and KRE and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 KRE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28KRE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KRE +7
- 62 vs 69
- 7 sessions ago
- KRE +10
- 58 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- KRE +2
- 54 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when KRE moved ahead of KBWB.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only KRE
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.86%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.17%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1KBWB closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to KRE's edge.
- 2KBWB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3KRE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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.
Performance
KRE leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | KBWB | KRE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.2% | 3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7% | -5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | 4.5% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | 11.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.9% | 17.8% |
Technicals
KRE has the stronger structure| Metric | KBWB | KRE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.5 | 65.6 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.3% | 1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.9% | 17.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | KBWB | KRE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -14.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.6% | -7.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 20.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between KBWB and KRE?
KBWB and KRE both concentrate in Financial Services, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 13% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do KBWB and KRE overlap?
KBWB and KRE share 12.91% of their weighted exposure across 10 common holdings. 15 holdings are unique to KBWB, and 148 holdings are unique to KRE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, KBWB or KRE?
KRE holds more positions: 160 versus 29 for KBWB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.35% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 2.09% for KBWB and 2.24% for KRE.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 19.8% annualized for KBWB and 20.4% for KRE.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
KBWB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -49.3% against -52.7% for KRE.
Compare KBWB and KRE with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.