XLB vs XLG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLB and XLG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLB is State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLG is Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF. XLG is broader by holdings count, with 54 positions versus 28 for XLB. XLB has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLB ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 56.
What is the main difference between XLB and XLG?
XLB and XLG have little in common: 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLB | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.2% |
| Holdings | 28 | 54 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.4% | 60.3% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.66% | 0.62% |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 1,209,941 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | +8.3% |
| YTD return | +14.4% | +7.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.1% | +13.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 14.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -12.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.7% | -28% |
| Beta | 0.71 | 1.10 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 0.29 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 56/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF vs Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
XLB leads
XLB leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from XLG.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support XLB, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLB over XLG, 63 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while XLG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. XLB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. XLB lead: Reversed — XLG led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLB now leads by 7.
Compare State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLB vs XLG: 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 | XLG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.2% | XLB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 28 | 54 | XLG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.4% | 60.3% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.66% | 0.62% | XLB |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.7% | -28% | XLB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.7% | 14.6% | XLG |
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 XLG 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 55XLB +24
- Quality66 vs 59XLB +7
- Risk Resilience77 vs 82XLG +5
- Value41 vs 40Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor XLB. XLB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; XLG keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
XLB's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLB and XLG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLB (State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | XLG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.2% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 28 | 54 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 11,162,220 | 1,209,941 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 14.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.4% | -12.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.19 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.71 | 1.10 | 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 XLG share 0.52% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
25 holdings are unique to XLB, and 51 holdings are unique to XLG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 60.29% of the fund, against 59.39% for XLB (54 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.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | XLB | XLG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| LINLINDE PLC | 12.91% | 0.52% | 0.52% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What XLB adds that XLG doesn’t
| Holding | XLB | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| LINLINDE PLC | 12.91% | 0.52% |
| 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 XLG adds that XLB doesn’t
| Holding | XLG | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 12.77% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 11.58% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 8.83% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.95% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.71% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.12% | 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 XLG: five-year payout growth
XLB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.93% a year against XLG's 1.28%.
| Dividend metric | XLB | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.93% | 1.28% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.622 | $0.357 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.870 | $0.380 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #77 of 138 | #123 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 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 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 41 vs 40 |
| Technicals | XLB | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs 4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | XLG | Risk Resilience 77 vs 82 |
| 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 XLG 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Reversed — XLG led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLB now leads by 7.
- Today
- XLB +7
- 63 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- XLB +13
- 63 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- XLG +10
- 51 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- XLB +8
- 60 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when XLB moved ahead of XLG.
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
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.34%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.5%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.32%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1XLG closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLB's edge.
- 2XLG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | XLB | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.5% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.4% | 5.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | 5% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 7.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 8.3% |
Technicals
XLB has the stronger structure| Metric | XLB | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.2 | 42.6 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | 4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.1% | 13.4% |
Risk
XLG is the more resilient| Metric | XLB | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 1.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 0.29 |
| Max drawdown | -12.4% | -12.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 14.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLB and XLG?
XLB and XLG have little in common: 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLB and XLG overlap?
XLB and XLG share 0.52% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 25 holdings are unique to XLB, and 51 holdings are unique to XLG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLB or XLG?
XLG holds more positions: 54 versus 28 for XLB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLB has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.2% for XLG.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLB, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.66% against 0.62% for XLG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLB has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.7% annualized against 14.6% for XLG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.7% against -28% for XLG.
Compare XLB and XLG 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.