XLB vs XLE: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLB and XLE are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLB is State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLE is State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLE is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between XLB and XLE?
XLB and XLE have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLB | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 28 | 24 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.4% | 74% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.66% | 2.23% |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 30,369,883 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | +55.4% |
| YTD return | +14.4% | +52.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.1% | +22.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 22.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -15.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.7% | -26.1% |
| Beta | 0.71 | -0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.97 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 3.08 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 75/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 39/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLB and XLE are effectively level
XLB and XLE are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate XLB and XLE as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF and State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLB 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 | XLB | XLE | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 28 | 24 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.4% | 74% | XLB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.66% | 2.23% | XLE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.7% | -26.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.7% | 22.2% | XLB |
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 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 Resilience77 vs 39XLB +38
- Value41 vs 54XLE +13
- Quality66 vs 75XLE +9
- Momentum79 vs 75XLB +4
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLB and XLE 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 | XLE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 28 | 24 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 30,369,883 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 22.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -15.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.97 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.71 | -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
XLB and XLE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
26 holdings are unique to XLB, 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 59.39% for XLB (24 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 XLE doesn’t
| Holding | XLB | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 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 XLE adds that XLB doesn’t
| Holding | XLE | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
XLB vs XLE: five-year payout growth
XLB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.93% a year against XLE's 6.57%. XLE: The 2020 payout was 47.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | XLB | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.93% | 6.57% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.622 | $1.066 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.870 | $1.465 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #77 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 63 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLE | Value 41 vs 54 |
| Technicals | XLE | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs 8.2%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs 17% |
| Risk Resilience | XLB | Risk Resilience 77 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28XLE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 63 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- XLE +1
- 63 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- XLE +8
- 51 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- XLE +4
- 60 vs 64
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 5 when XLE moved ahead of XLB.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.10%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.33%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only XLE
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.57%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.4%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.91%, AIQ -1 points).
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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XLB | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.5% | 11.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.4% | 16.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | 16% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 52.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 55.4% |
Technicals
XLE has the stronger structure| Metric | XLB | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.2 | 65.2 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 17.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | 8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | 17% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.1% | 21.7% |
Risk
XLB is the more resilient| Metric | XLB | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | -0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.97 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 3.08 |
| Max drawdown | -12.4% | -15.6% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -1.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 22.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLB and XLE?
XLB and XLE have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLB and XLE overlap?
XLB and XLE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 26 holdings are unique to XLB, 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, XLB or XLE?
They hold a similar number of positions: 28 for XLB and 24 for XLE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.08% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.23% against 1.66% for XLB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLE has been more volatile over the past year, at 22.2% annualized against 17.7% for XLB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -24.7% for XLB and -26.1% for XLE.
Compare XLB 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.