XHB vs XLF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XHB and XLF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XHB is State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF, while XLF is State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLF is broader by holdings count, with 80 positions versus 35 for XHB. XLF is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLF ahead on AIQ Score, 71 versus 53.
What is the main difference between XHB and XLF?
XHB and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XHB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 35 | 80 |
| Top-10 concentration | 39.3% | 57.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.12% | 1.47% |
| Average volume | 2,137,161 | 32,946,419 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -10% | +5.7% |
| YTD return | -4.8% | +2.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.5% | +8.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 14.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -23.5% | -15.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -39.5% | -25.8% |
| Beta | 1.13 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.36 | 0.20 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.67 | 0.30 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 71/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 49/100 | 76/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 53/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLF leads
XLF leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLF, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLF over XHB, 71 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. XLF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLF today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. XLF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 points over 30 sessions. XLF 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 State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XHB 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 | XHB | XLF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% | XLF |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 35 | 80 | XLF |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 39.3% | 57.2% | XHB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.12% | 1.47% | XLF |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -39.5% | -25.8% | XLF |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 28.1% | 14.4% | XLF |
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 XHB 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.
- Momentum49 vs 76XLF +27
- Risk Resilience53 vs 76XLF +23
- Quality54 vs 75XLF +21
- Value54 vs 59XLF +5
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLF. XLF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
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 4 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 6 active signals are unchanged.
XLF's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XHB and XLF both carry a full feed there.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | XHB | 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 | XHB | XLF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 35 | 80 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,137,161 | 32,946,419 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 14.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -23.5% | -15.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.36 | 0.20 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.13 | 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
XHB and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
33 holdings are unique to XHB, and 78 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 39.31% for XHB (80 holdings vs 35). 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 XHB adds that XLF doesn’t
| Holding | XHB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| ALLEALLEGION PLC | 4.42% | Not held |
| OCOWENS CORNING | 4.18% | Not held |
| WSMWILLIAMS SONOMA INC | 4.08% | Not held |
| SKYCHAMPION HOMES INC | 3.94% | Not held |
| IBPINSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS | 3.9% | Not held |
| JCIJOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATION | 3.87% | Not held |
What XLF adds that XHB doesn’t
| Holding | XLF | XHB |
|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE + CO | 11.81% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B | 11.58% | Not held |
| VVISA INC CLASS A SHARES | 7.59% | Not held |
| MAMASTERCARD INC A | 5.68% | Not held |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORP | 5.09% | Not held |
| GSGOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC | 3.75% | 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.
XHB vs XLF: five-year payout growth
XHB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 13.70% a year against XLF's 3.77%.
| Dividend metric | XHB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 13.70% | 3.77% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.422 | $0.598 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.802 | $0.720 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #42 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
4 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 | 53 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLF | Value 54 vs 59 |
| Technicals | XLF | Price vs 50-day 2.2% vs 1%; vs 200-day -6.9% vs 4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | XLF | Risk Resilience 53 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 XHB and XLF and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Jul 1 – Oct 30XLF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLF +18
- 53 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- XLF +16
- 52 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- XLF +12
- 50 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- XLF +19
- 49 vs 68
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XHB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.50%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only XLF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.22%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.20%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
XHB 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.3%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.76%, 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.
- 1XHB closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge.
- 2XHB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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
XLF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XHB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.5% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2% | 5.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.3% | -1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.8% | 8.1% |
| Year to date | -4.8% | 2.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10% | 5.7% |
Technicals
XLF has the stronger structure| Metric | XHB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.2 | 66.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.2% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.9% | 4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.5% | 11.4% |
Risk
XLF is the more resilient| Metric | XHB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.13 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.36 | 0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.67 | 0.3 |
| Max drawdown | -23.5% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -19.3% | -4.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 14.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XHB and XLF?
XHB and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XHB and XLF overlap?
XHB and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 33 holdings are unique to XHB, and 78 holdings are unique to XLF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, XHB or XLF?
XLF holds more positions: 80 versus 35 for XHB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLF has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.35% for XHB.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLF, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.47% against 1.12% for XHB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XHB has been more volatile over the past year, at 28.1% annualized against 14.4% for XLF.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLF fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.8% against -39.5% for XHB.
Compare XHB 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.