XLB vs XLC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLB and XLC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLB is State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLC is State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLB ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 48.
What is the main difference between XLB and XLC?
XLB and XLC have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLB | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 28 | 27 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.4% | 70.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.66% | 1.34% |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 5,977,128 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | -10.4% |
| YTD return | +14.4% | -10.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.1% | +6.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 16.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -14.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.7% | -43.9% |
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | -0.92 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | -1.48 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 22/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 73/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLB leads
XLB leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLB, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLB over XLC, 63 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. XLB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLB today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. XLB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF and State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLB 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 | XLB | XLC | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 28 | 27 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.4% | 70.4% | XLB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.66% | 1.34% | XLB |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.7% | -43.9% | XLB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.7% | 16.3% | 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.
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 XLB 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.
- Momentum79 vs 22XLB +57
- Value41 vs 36XLB +5
- Risk Resilience77 vs 73XLB +4
- Quality66 vs 68Even
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLB. XLB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
XLB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLB 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 | XLB | XLC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 28 | 27 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 5,977,128 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 16.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -14.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | -0.92 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.71 | 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
XLB and XLC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
26 holdings are unique to XLB, and 25 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 59.39% for XLB (27 holdings vs 28). 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 XLB adds that XLC doesn’t
| Holding | XLB | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| LINLINDE PLC | 12.91% | Not held |
| NEMNEWMONT CORP | 8.14% | Not held |
| FCXFREEPORT MCMORAN INC | 6.19% | Not held |
| CTVACORTEVA INC | 5.11% | Not held |
| APDAIR PRODUCTS + CHEMICALS INC | 4.78% | Not held |
| ECLECOLAB INC | 4.75% | Not held |
What XLC adds that XLB doesn’t
| Holding | XLC | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC CLASS A | 18.92% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 10.12% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET INC CL C | 8.1% | Not held |
| TAT+T INC | 5.19% | Not held |
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 5.03% | Not held |
| DISWALT DISNEY CO/THE | 4.76% | 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 XLB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLB | 63 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLB | Value 41 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLB | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs -10.1%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs -8.4% |
| Risk Resilience | XLB | Risk Resilience 77 vs 73 |
| 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 XLB and XLC 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 15 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 swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 XLB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28XLB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLB +15
- 63 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- XLB +15
- 63 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 51 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- XLB +3
- 60 vs 57
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when XLB 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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.33%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
Only XLC
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Death Cross Active.
XLB 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.4%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.29%, 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.
- 1XLC closes the Momentum gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLB's edge.
- 2XLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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
XLB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | XLB | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | -5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.5% | -7.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.4% | -3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | -10.4% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | -10.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | -10.4% |
Technicals
XLB has the stronger structure| Metric | XLB | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.2 | 22.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 18.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | -10.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | -8.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.1% | 16.6% |
Risk
XLB is the more resilient| Metric | XLB | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | -0.92 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | -1.48 |
| Max drawdown | -12.4% | -14.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 16.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLB and XLC?
XLB and XLC have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLB and XLC overlap?
XLB and XLC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 26 holdings are unique to XLB, and 25 holdings are unique to XLC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLB or XLC?
They hold a similar number of positions: 28 for XLB and 27 for XLC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.08% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLB, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.66% against 1.34% for XLC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLB has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.7% annualized against 16.3% for XLC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.7% against -43.9% for XLC.
Compare XLB 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.