VXUS vs XLC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk

VXUS and XLC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF, while XLC is State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 27 for XLC. XLC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VXUS ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 52.

Market data as of Oct 21, 2026 market close· Fund characteristics as of Oct 21, 2026
VXUS
Vanguard
vs
XLC
SPDR
VXUS
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
Issuer
Vanguard
Inception
2011-01-26
XLC
State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
Issuer
SPDR
Inception
2018-06-18

What is the main difference between VXUS and XLC?

XLC puts 100% of its assets in Communication Services, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.

Expense ratio
VXUS
0.05%
XLC
0.08%
Lower annual fund costVXUS
Holdings
VXUS
8,821
XLC
27
Broader reported basketVXUS
1Y return
VXUS
+12.8%
XLC
-3.5%
Trailing performanceVXUS
Annualized volatility
VXUS
17.2%
XLC
16.1%
Lower realized volatilityXLC
MetricVXUSXLC
Fund
Expense ratio0.05%0.08%
Holdings8,82127
Top-10 concentration12.9%70.4%
Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months2.37%1.25%
Average volume5,459,7766,018,971
Performance
1Y return+12.8%-3.5%
YTD return+11%-6.4%
5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested+8.3%+7.6%
Risk
Annualized volatility17.2%16.1%
Max drawdown (1Y)-11.4%-12.2%
Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested-28.9%-43.9%
Beta1.110.68
Sharpe ratio0.56-0.43
Sortino ratio0.83-0.68
AlgovestIQ
AIQ Score63/10052/100
AIQ Edge Score9/104/10
Momentum41/10039/100
Risk Resilience82/10074/100

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

Vanguard Total International Stock ETF vs State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF

Data as of Oct 21, 2026· market close· Coverage 64/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictCompetitiveAIQ Comparison Conviction 7/10

VXUS leads

VXUS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.

Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support VXUS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 4 of 4Comparison trend: Strengthening
VXUS

Vanguard Total International Stock ETF

Leads
AIQ Score
63/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10
XLC

State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF

AIQ Score
52/100
AIQ Edge Score
4/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over XLC, 63 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. VXUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VXUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions.

Compare Vanguard Total International Stock ETF and State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.

VXUS 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 wantVXUSXLCFits
Lower costExpense ratio0.05%0.08%VXUS
Broader diversificationNumber of holdings8,82127VXUS
Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings12.9%70.4%VXUS
Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield2.37%1.25%VXUS
Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years-28.9%-43.9%VXUS
Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year17.2%16.1%XLC

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.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.

VXUS
+48.9%
XLC
+43.9%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

VXUS $14,887 · XLC $14,389

Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.

Compare VXUS and XLC against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

VXUS advantage
0
XLC advantage
  • Value59 vs 36
    VXUS +23
  • Quality76 vs 68
    VXUS +8
  • Risk Resilience82 vs 74
    VXUS +8
  • Momentum41 vs 39
    Even

4 of 4 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.

VXUS+1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +6

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.

XLC+1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +2

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.

VXUS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VXUS 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.

MeasureVXUSXLCWhy it matters
Expense ratio0.05%0.08%Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold.
Holdings8,82127More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns.
Average volume5,459,7766,018,971Liquidity — matters most if you trade size.
Annualized volatility17.2%16.1%Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure.
Max drawdown (1Y)-11.4%-12.2%The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year.
Sharpe ratio0.56-0.43Return per unit of risk. Higher is better.
Beta1.110.68Sensitivity 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.

Communication Services3.9% vs 100.0%
Financial Services22.2% vs 0.0%
Technology20.9% vs 0.0%
Industrials14.3% vs 0.0%
Basic Materials7.3% vs 0.0%
Consumer Cyclical7.1% vs 0.0%
Healthcare6.6% vs 0.0%
Consumer Defensive4.6% vs 0.0%
VXUSXLC

How much of the same holdings they own

VXUS and XLC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.

8,280 holdings are unique to VXUS, and 24 holdings are 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 12.94% for VXUS (27 holdings vs 8,821). 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

HoldingVXUSXLCShared
FOXFOX CORP CLASS B0%1.47%0%

Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.

What VXUS adds that XLC doesn’t

HoldingVXUSXLC
2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd4.02%Not held
005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd1.8%Not held
ASML.ASASML Holding NV1.42%Not held
000660.KSSK hynix Inc1.41%Not held
0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd0.85%Not held
HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC0.82%Not held

What XLC adds that VXUS doesn’t

HoldingXLCVXUS
METAMETA PLATFORMS INC CLASS A18.92%Not held
GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A10.12%Not held
GOOGALPHABET INC CL C8.1%Not held
TAT+T INC5.19%Not held
VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC5.03%Not held
DISWALT DISNEY CO/THE4.76%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.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreVXUS63 vs 52
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationVXUSValue 59 vs 36
TechnicalsVXUSPrice vs 50-day -2.6% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day 0.6% vs -2.9%
Risk ResilienceVXUSRisk Resilience 82 vs 74
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VXUS and XLC and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Competitive

The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.

  • The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 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 VXUS.

How the comparison changed

120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20

VXUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions.

Jun 21VXUS leads above the line · XLC leads belowOct 20
Today
VXUS +11
63 vs 52
7 sessions ago
VXUS +6
61 vs 55
30 sessions ago
VXUS +6
62 vs 56
90 sessions ago
VXUS +15
71 vs 56

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.

VXUSConflicted

1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted

Only VXUS

  • Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.63%)
  • ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.08%)
XLC

0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral

Only XLC

  • Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.42%)
  • Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon

Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bearish Crossover.

VXUS 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.

VXUSConfirmed strength

Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.31%, AIQ +1 points).

XLCDivergence

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.

  1. 1XLC closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
  2. 2XLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3VXUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 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

VXUS leads 4 of 6 windows
MetricVXUSXLC
1 week (5 sessions)-0.9%-1.9%
1 month (20 sessions)-4.3%-2.9%
3 months (63 sessions)-0.9%0.9%
6 months (126 sessions)2.3%-5.9%
Year to date11%-6.4%
1 year (252 sessions)12.8%-3.5%

Technicals

VXUS has the stronger structure
MetricVXUSXLC
RSI (14)41.447
ADX (14)19.97
Price vs 50-day-2.6%-2.6%
Price vs 200-day0.6%-2.9%
Volatility (1M, annualized)12.1%16.2%

Risk

VXUS is the more resilient
MetricVXUSXLC
Beta1.110.68
Sharpe ratio0.56-0.43
Sortino ratio0.83-0.68
Max drawdown-11.4%-12.2%
Current drawdown-5.3%-8.2%
Annualized volatility17.2%16.1%
Value at risk (95%)-1.7%-1.6%

Straight answers

Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.

What is the difference between VXUS and XLC?

XLC puts 100% of its assets in Communication Services, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.

How much do VXUS and XLC overlap?

VXUS and XLC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 8,280 holdings are unique to VXUS, and 24 holdings are unique to XLC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.

Which ETF is more diversified, VXUS or XLC?

VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 27 for XLC.

Which has the lower expense ratio?

VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% a year against 0.08% for XLC.

Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?

VXUS, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.37% against 1.25% for XLC.

Which ETF has been more volatile?

VXUS has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.2% annualized against 16.1% for XLC.

Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?

VXUS fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.9% against -43.9% for XLC.

Compare VXUS 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.