TFC vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare TFC and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TFC and XLK?
TFC and XLK are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Truist Financial Corporation vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
TFC and XLK are effectively level
TFC and XLK are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Truist Financial Corporation
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate TFC and XLK as of Sep 6, 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 Truist Financial Corporation and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare TFC 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.
- Quality30%51 vs 74XLK +23
- Value30%58 vs 36TFC +22
- Momentum25%57 vs 57Even
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 61Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TFC 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
TFCTFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TFCTFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | TFC | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +30.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | TFC | Value 58 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 4% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5XLK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- XLK +8
- 49 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +2
- 59 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- TFC +8
- 56 vs 48
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when XLK moved ahead of TFC.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.74%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.88%)
- 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 +0.08%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.7%, AIQ 0 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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | TFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.7% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 64% | — |
| Operating margin | 22.3% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9% | — |
| Debt to equity | 1.09 | — |
Performance
XLK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.4% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.3% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.1% | 36.4% |
| Year to date | 5% | 30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.3% | 43.3% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | TFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.1 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 11.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.7% | 20.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.35 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.46 | 2.06 |
| Max drawdown | -21.5% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -7.5% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, TFC or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +7.2% upside for TFC and not covered for XLK. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, TFC or XLK?
TFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, TFC 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, TFC or XLK?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, TFC or XLK?
TFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is TFC more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about TFC and XLK?
TFC: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 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 TFC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.