XLC vs XLF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLC and XLF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLC is State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLF is State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLF is broader by holdings count, with 80 positions versus 27 for XLC. XLC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLF ahead on AIQ Score, 69 versus 52.
What is the main difference between XLC and XLF?
XLC and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLC | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 27 | 80 |
| Top-10 concentration | 70.4% | 57.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.25% | 1.48% |
| Average volume | 6,018,971 | 34,029,966 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -3.5% | +7.7% |
| YTD return | -6.4% | +1.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.6% | +8.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.1% | 14.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -15.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -43.9% | -25.8% |
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.68 | 0.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 69/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 66/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLF leads
XLF leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLF over XLC, 69 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. XLF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. XLF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Communication Services 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.
XLC 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 | XLC | XLF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 27 | 80 | XLF |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 70.4% | 57.2% | XLF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.25% | 1.48% | XLF |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -43.9% | -25.8% | XLF |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16.1% | 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 XLC 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.
- Momentum39 vs 66XLF +27
- Value36 vs 60XLF +24
- Quality68 vs 76XLF +8
- Risk Resilience74 vs 75Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLF. XLF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
XLF's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLC 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 | XLC | XLF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | -30.4% | 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 | XLC | XLF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 27 | 80 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,018,971 | 34,029,966 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.1% | 14.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -15.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.26 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.58 | 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
XLC and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
25 holdings are unique to XLC, and 78 holdings are unique to XLF. 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 57.23% for XLF (27 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 XLC adds that XLF doesn’t
| Holding | XLC | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What XLF adds that XLC doesn’t
| Holding | XLF | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 52 vs 69 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLF | Value 36 vs 60 |
| Technicals | XLF | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 75 |
| 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 XLC 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 wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XLF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XLF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLF +17
- 52 vs 69
- 7 sessions ago
- XLF +10
- 55 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- XLF +4
- 56 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- XLF +11
- 56 vs 67
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only XLC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.42%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.65%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.28%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
XLF 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.11%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.57%, 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.
- 1XLC closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge.
- 2XLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
XLF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XLC | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.9% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.9% | 6.5% |
| Year to date | -6.4% | 1.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.5% | 7.7% |
Technicals
XLF has the stronger structure| Metric | XLC | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47 | 74.1 |
| ADX (14) | 7 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 11.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | XLC | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.68 | 0.38 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.1% | 14.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLC and XLF?
XLC and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLC and XLF overlap?
XLC and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 25 holdings are unique to XLC, 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, XLC or XLF?
XLF holds more positions: 80 versus 27 for XLC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.08% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLF, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.48% against 1.25% for XLC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLC has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.1% 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 -43.9% for XLC.
Compare XLC 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.