XLB vs XLF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLB and XLF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLB is State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLF is State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLF is broader by holdings count, with 80 positions versus 28 for XLB. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLF ahead on AIQ Score, 71 versus 63.
What is the main difference between XLB and XLF?
XLB and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 28 | 80 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.4% | 57.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.66% | 1.47% |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 32,946,419 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | +5.7% |
| YTD return | +14.4% | +2.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.1% | +8.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 14.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -15.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.7% | -25.8% |
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.20 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 0.30 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 71/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 76/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLF leads
XLF leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support XLF, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLF over XLB, 71 versus 63 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. XLF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. XLF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLB 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 | XLB | XLF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 28 | 80 | XLF |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.4% | 57.2% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.66% | 1.47% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.7% | -25.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.7% | 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 XLB 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.
- Value41 vs 60XLF +19
- Quality66 vs 76XLF +10
- Momentum79 vs 76Even
- Risk Resilience77 vs 76Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor XLF. XLF’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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 +12
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
XLF's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLB 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 | XLB | 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 | XLB | XLF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 28 | 80 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 32,946,419 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 14.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -15.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.20 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.71 | 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
XLB and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
26 holdings are unique to XLB, and 78 holdings are unique to XLF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 59.39% of the fund, against 57.23% for XLF (28 holdings vs 80). 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 XLF doesn’t
| Holding | XLB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 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 XLF adds that XLB doesn’t
| Holding | XLF | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
XLB vs XLF: five-year payout growth
XLB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.93% a year against XLF's 3.77%.
| Dividend metric | XLB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.93% | 3.77% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.622 | $0.598 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.870 | $0.720 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #77 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
2 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 | 63 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLF | Value 41 vs 60 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs 1%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs 4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 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 XLB and XLF and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 XLF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28XLF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLF +8
- 63 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- XLF +4
- 63 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- XLF +9
- 51 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- XLF +8
- 60 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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.10%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only XLF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.22%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bullish Crossover.
XLB 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.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.76%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1XLB closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge.
- 2XLB'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
XLB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XLB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.5% | 5.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.4% | -1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | 8.1% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 2.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 5.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | XLB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.2 | 66.8 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | 4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.1% | 11.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | XLB | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 0.3 |
| Max drawdown | -12.4% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -4.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 14.4% |
| 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 XLF?
XLB and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLB and XLF overlap?
XLB and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 26 holdings are unique to XLB, 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, XLB or XLF?
XLF holds more positions: 80 versus 28 for XLB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.08% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.66% for XLB and 1.47% for XLF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLB has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.7% annualized against 14.4% for XLF.
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 -25.8% for XLF.
Compare XLB 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.