VTI vs XLC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VTI and XLC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF, while XLC is State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 27 for XLC. XLC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 52.
What is the main difference between VTI and XLC?
XLC puts 100% of its assets in Communication Services, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | VTI | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 27 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.2% | 70.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.05% | 1.25% |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 6,018,971 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.8% | -3.5% |
| YTD return | +12.5% | -6.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.4% | +7.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 16.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -43.9% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | -0.68 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 52/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 39/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support VTI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over XLC, 60 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. VTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions. VTI leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF and State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VTI vs XLC: 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 | VTI | XLC | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,524 | 27 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.2% | 70.4% | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.05% | 1.25% | XLC |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -43.9% | VTI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 16.1% | VTI |
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 VTI and XLC 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.
- Momentum51 vs 39VTI +12
- Risk Resilience86 vs 74VTI +12
- Quality74 vs 68VTI +6
- Value42 vs 36VTI +6
4 of 4 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VTI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTI and XLC 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 | VTI | XLC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 27 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 6,018,971 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 16.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | -0.43 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.68 | 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
VTI and XLC share 8.74% of their weighted exposure across 24 common holdings.
3,475 holdings are unique to VTI, and 1 holding is unique to XLC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLC is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 70.42% of the fund, against 33.24% for VTI (27 holdings vs 3,524). 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 | VTI | XLC | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 2.9% | 10.12% | 2.9% |
| GOOGALPHABET INC CL C | 2.31% | 8.1% | 2.31% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC CLASS A | 1.7% | 18.92% | 1.7% |
| NFLXNETFLIX INC | 0.42% | 4.57% | 0.42% |
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 0.24% | 5.03% | 0.24% |
| DISWALT DISNEY CO/THE | 0.23% | 4.76% | 0.23% |
| TAT+T INC | 0.22% | 5.19% | 0.22% |
| APPAPPLOVIN CORP CLASS A | 0.15% | 1.34% | 0.15% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VTI adds that XLC doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | Not held |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 1.35% | Not held |
What XLC adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | XLC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC CLASS A | 18.92% | 1.7% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 10.12% | 2.9% |
| GOOGALPHABET INC CL C | 8.1% | 2.31% |
| TAT+T INC | 5.19% | 0.22% |
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 5.03% | 0.24% |
| DISWALT DISNEY CO/THE | 4.76% | 0.23% |
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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VTI | 60 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTI | Value 42 vs 36 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 86 vs 74 |
| 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 VTI and XLC 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 8 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 VTI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +8
- 60 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +4
- 59 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +4
- 60 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- VTI +10
- 66 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when VTI moved ahead of XLC.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.66%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.96%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only XLC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.42%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
VTI 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.11%, 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.
- 1XLC closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2XLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
VTI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | VTI | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | -5.9% |
| Year to date | 12.5% | -6.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | -3.5% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | VTI | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 47 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.8% | 16.2% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | VTI | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | -0.68 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 16.1% |
| 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 VTI and XLC?
XLC puts 100% of its assets in Communication Services, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do VTI and XLC overlap?
VTI and XLC share 8.74% of their weighted exposure across 24 common holdings. 3,475 holdings are unique to VTI, and 1 holding is unique to XLC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VTI or XLC?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 27 for XLC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.08% for XLC.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLC, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.25% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLC has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.1% annualized against 13% for VTI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.4% against -43.9% for XLC.
Compare VTI and XLC 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.