XLC vs XLI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLC and XLI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLC is State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLI is State Street Industrial Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLI is broader by holdings count, with 86 positions versus 27 for XLC. XLC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLI ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 52.
What is the main difference between XLC and XLI?
XLI holds 86 positions to XLC's 27, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLC | XLI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 27 | 86 |
| Top-10 concentration | 70.4% | 40.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.25% | 1.13% |
| Average volume | 6,018,971 | 7,083,898 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -3.5% | +10% |
| YTD return | -6.4% | +7.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.6% | +11.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.1% | 17.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -12.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -43.9% | -21.7% |
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.68 | 0.65 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Industrial Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLI leads
XLI leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from XLC.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support XLI, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Industrial Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLI over XLC, 54 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. XLI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. XLI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. XLI lead: Reversed — XLC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLI now leads by 2.
Compare State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR ETF and State Street Industrial Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLC vs XLI: 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 | XLI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 27 | 86 | XLI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 70.4% | 40.1% | XLI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.25% | 1.13% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -43.9% | -21.7% | XLI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16.1% | 17.1% | 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 XLC and XLI 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 Resilience74 vs 81XLI +7
- Momentum39 vs 41Even
- Quality68 vs 68Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor XLI. XLI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
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 +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
XLI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLC and XLI 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 | XLC | XLI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 27 | 86 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,018,971 | 7,083,898 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.1% | 17.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -12.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.41 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.93 | 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 XLI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
25 holdings are unique to XLC, and 84 holdings are unique to XLI. 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 40.15% for XLI (27 holdings vs 86). 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 XLI doesn’t
| Holding | XLC | XLI |
|---|---|---|
| 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 XLI adds that XLC doesn’t
| Holding | XLI | XLC |
|---|---|---|
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 6.92% | Not held |
| GEGENERAL ELECTRIC | 6.32% | Not held |
| RTXRTX CORP | 4.98% | Not held |
| GEVGE VERNOVA INC | 4.64% | Not held |
| DEDEERE + CO | 3.18% | Not held |
| UNPUNION PACIFIC CORP | 3.17% | 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 52 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs -3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | XLI | Risk Resilience 74 vs 81 |
| 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 XLI 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 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 XLI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XLI lead: Reversed — XLC led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLI now leads by 2.
- Today
- XLI +2
- 52 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- XLC +3
- 55 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- XLC +4
- 56 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- XLI +5
- 56 vs 61
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when XLI 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.
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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only XLI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.18%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.50%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
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 +0.91%, 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.
- 1XLC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLI's edge.
- 2XLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLI'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
XLI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XLC | XLI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.9% | -2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -6.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.9% | -2.7% |
| Year to date | -6.4% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.5% | 10% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | XLC | XLI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47 | 49.4 |
| ADX (14) | 7 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | -3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 13.2% |
Risk
XLI is the more resilient| Metric | XLC | XLI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.68 | 0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -12.5% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -10.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.1% | 17.1% |
| 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 XLI?
XLI holds 86 positions to XLC's 27, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLC and XLI overlap?
XLC and XLI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 25 holdings are unique to XLC, and 84 holdings are unique to XLI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLC or XLI?
XLI holds more positions: 86 versus 27 for XLC.
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: 1.25% for XLC and 1.13% for XLI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLI has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.1% annualized against 16.1% for XLC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -21.7% against -43.9% for XLC.
Compare XLC and XLI 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.