XBI vs XLE: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XBI and XLE are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XBI is State Street SPDR S&P Biotech ETF, while XLE is State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF. XBI is broader by holdings count, with 156 positions versus 24 for XLE. XLE is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLE ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 59.
What is the main difference between XBI and XLE?
XBI holds 156 positions to XLE's 24, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XBI | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 156 | 24 |
| Top-10 concentration | 15.9% | 74% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.35% | 2.23% |
| Average volume | 9,003,461 | 30,369,883 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +45.3% | +55.4% |
| YTD return | +29.2% | +52.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +4.1% | +22.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 22.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -15.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -53.2% | -26.1% |
| Beta | 1.08 | -0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | 1.97 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.04 | 3.08 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 73/100 | 75/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 55/100 | 39/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR S&P Biotech ETF vs State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLE leads
XLE leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLE, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
State Street SPDR S&P Biotech ETF
State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLE over XBI, 63 versus 59 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while XBI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. XLE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. XLE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR S&P Biotech ETF and State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XBI vs XLE: 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 | XBI | XLE | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% | XLE |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 156 | 24 | XBI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 15.9% | 74% | XBI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.35% | 2.23% | XLE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -53.2% | -26.1% | XLE |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.1% | 22.2% | XLE |
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 XBI and XLE 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.
- Risk Resilience55 vs 39XBI +16
- Quality64 vs 74XLE +10
- Value45 vs 53XLE +8
- Momentum73 vs 75Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLE. XLE’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; XBI keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Value -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Quality -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
XLE's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XBI and XLE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLE (State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
XBI (State Street SPDR S&P Biotech ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 34.4% against 21.7%.
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 | XBI | XLE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 156 | 24 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 9,003,461 | 30,369,883 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 22.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -15.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | 1.97 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.08 | -0.43 | 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
XBI and XLE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
154 holdings are unique to XBI, and 22 holdings are unique to XLE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLE is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 74.01% of the fund, against 15.94% for XBI (24 holdings vs 156). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What XBI adds that XLE doesn’t
| Holding | XBI | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| MRNAMODERNA INC | 2.87% | Not held |
| TWSTTWIST BIOSCIENCE CORP | 1.81% | Not held |
| HALOHALOZYME THERAPEUTICS INC | 1.47% | Not held |
| NTRANATERA INC | 1.46% | Not held |
| KYMRKYMERA THERAPEUTICS INC | 1.45% | Not held |
| TVTXTRAVERE THERAPEUTICS INC | 1.4% | Not held |
What XLE adds that XBI doesn’t
| Holding | XLE | XBI |
|---|---|---|
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 20.13% | Not held |
| CVXCHEVRON CORP | 15.18% | Not held |
| COPCONOCOPHILLIPS | 6.36% | Not held |
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM CORP | 5.63% | Not held |
| PSXPHILLIPS 66 | 5.52% | Not held |
| VLOVALERO ENERGY CORP | 5.38% | 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.
XBI vs XLE: five-year payout growth
XBI grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.61% a year against XLE's 6.57%. XBI: The payout jumped 704.4% in 2024, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. XBI: A single payment in an endpoint year was 10.6x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result. XLE: The 2020 payout was 47.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | XBI | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.61% | 6.57% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.282 | $1.066 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.446 | $1.465 |
| Peer rank | #59 of 138 | #79 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLE | 59 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLE | Value 45 vs 53 |
| Technicals | XLE | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 8.2%; vs 200-day 11.5% vs 17% |
| Risk Resilience | XBI | Risk Resilience 55 vs 39 |
| 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 XBI and XLE 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 XLE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30XLE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLE +4
- 59 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- XLE +11
- 53 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- XLE +11
- 53 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 64 vs 64
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 1 when XLE moved ahead of XBI.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only XLE
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.15%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.91%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1XBI closes the Quality gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLE's edge.
- 2XBI generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
- 3XLE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate XLE's advantage entirely.
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
XLE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | XBI | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | 11.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4% | 16.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.2% | 16% |
| Year to date | 29.2% | 52.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 45.3% | 55.4% |
Technicals
XLE has the stronger structure| Metric | XBI | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.1 | 65.2 |
| ADX (14) | 14.1 | 17.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.5% | 17% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.4% | 21.7% |
Risk
XBI is the more resilient| Metric | XBI | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.08 | -0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | 1.97 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.04 | 3.08 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -15.6% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -1.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XBI and XLE?
XBI holds 156 positions to XLE's 24, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XBI and XLE overlap?
XBI and XLE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 154 holdings are unique to XBI, and 22 holdings are unique to XLE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, XBI or XLE?
XBI holds more positions: 156 versus 24 for XLE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLE has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.35% for XBI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.23% against 0.35% for XBI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XBI has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.1% annualized against 22.2% for XLE.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLE fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.1% against -53.2% for XBI.
Compare XBI and XLE 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.