VOO vs XLF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VOO and XLF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, while XLF is State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 80 for XLF. XLF is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLF ahead on AIQ Score, 71 versus 63.
What is the main difference between VOO and XLF?
VOO holds 508 positions to XLF's 80, and 12% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VOO | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 508 | 80 |
| Top-10 concentration | 37.6% | 57.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.05% | 1.47% |
| Average volume | 6,986,663 | 32,946,419 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +14% | +5.7% |
| YTD return | +13.2% | +2.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.5% | +8.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.7% | 14.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -15.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -25.8% |
| Beta | 1.00 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | 0.20 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.30 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 71/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 59/100 | 76/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLF leads
XLF leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from VOO.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support XLF, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLF over VOO, 71 versus 63 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while VOO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. XLF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. XLF lead: Reversed — VOO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLF now leads by 8.
Compare Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VOO vs XLF: 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 | VOO | XLF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 508 | 80 | VOO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 37.6% | 57.2% | VOO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.05% | 1.47% | XLF |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -25.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.7% | 14.4% | VOO |
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 VOO and XLF 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.
- Value41 vs 60XLF +19
- Momentum59 vs 76XLF +17
- Risk Resilience87 vs 76VOO +11
- Quality77 vs 76Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor XLF. XLF’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; VOO keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +5
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
XLF's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VOO and XLF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | VOO | XLF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | -31% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | VOO | XLF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 508 | 80 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,986,663 | 32,946,419 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.7% | 14.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -15.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | 0.20 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.00 | 0.57 | 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
VOO and XLF share 12.41% of their weighted exposure across 76 common holdings.
429 holdings are unique to VOO, and 2 holdings are unique to XLF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLF is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 57.23% of the fund, against 37.65% for VOO (80 holdings vs 508). 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 | VOO | XLF | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE + CO | 1.46% | 11.81% | 1.46% |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B | 1.46% | 11.58% | 1.46% |
| VVISA INC CLASS A SHARES | 0.93% | 7.59% | 0.93% |
| MAMASTERCARD INC A | 0.72% | 5.68% | 0.72% |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORP | 0.63% | 5.09% | 0.63% |
| GSGOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC | 0.45% | 3.75% | 0.45% |
| WFCWELLS FARGO + CO | 0.41% | 3.41% | 0.41% |
| MSMORGAN STANLEY | 0.39% | 3.18% | 0.39% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VOO adds that XLF doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.55% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.05% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.36% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.13% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.24% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | Not held |
What XLF adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | XLF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE + CO | 11.81% | 1.46% |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B | 11.58% | 1.46% |
| VVISA INC CLASS A SHARES | 7.59% | 0.93% |
| MAMASTERCARD INC A | 5.68% | 0.72% |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORP | 5.09% | 0.63% |
| GSGOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC | 3.75% | 0.45% |
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.
VOO vs XLF: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.91% a year against XLF's 3.77%. VOO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; XLF did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | VOO | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.91% | 3.77% |
| 2020 annual payout | $5.303 | $0.598 |
| 2025 annual payout | $7.068 | $0.720 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #88 of 138 | #110 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 XLF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLF | 63 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLF | Value 41 vs 60 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs 1%; vs 200-day 6% vs 4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 87 vs 76 |
| 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 VOO and XLF 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 XLF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28XLF lead: Reversed — VOO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLF now leads by 8.
- Today
- XLF +8
- 63 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- XLF +10
- 57 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +7
- 67 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- XLF +8
- 60 vs 68
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when VOO moved ahead of XLF.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only XLF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Uptrend Structure Active.
VOO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -1.77%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.76%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1VOO closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge.
- 2VOO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
- 3XLF'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
VOO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | VOO | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.3% | 5.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.1% | -1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.5% | 8.1% |
| Year to date | 13.2% | 2.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14% | 5.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | VOO | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.7 | 66.8 |
| ADX (14) | 13.9 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10% | 11.4% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | VOO | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | 0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.3 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | -4.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.7% | 14.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VOO and XLF?
VOO holds 508 positions to XLF's 80, and 12% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VOO and XLF overlap?
VOO and XLF share 12.41% of their weighted exposure across 76 common holdings. 429 holdings are unique to VOO, and 2 holdings are unique to XLF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VOO or XLF?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 80 for XLF.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.08% for XLF.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLF, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.47% against 1.05% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLF has been more volatile over the past year, at 14.4% annualized against 12.7% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -24.5% for VOO and -25.8% for XLF.
Compare VOO and XLF 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.