XLF vs XLE: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLF and XLE are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLF is State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLE is State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLF is broader by holdings count, with 80 positions versus 24 for XLE. XLE is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLF ahead on AIQ Score, 69 versus 65.
What is the main difference between XLF and XLE?
XLF holds 80 positions to XLE's 24, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLF | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 80 | 24 |
| Top-10 concentration | 57.2% | 74% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.48% | 2.24% |
| Average volume | 34,029,966 | 30,850,634 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +7.7% | +59% |
| YTD return | +1.7% | +51.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +8.4% | +22.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.4% | 22.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -15.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.8% | -26.1% |
| Beta | 0.58 | -0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 3.16 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 69/100 | 65/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 66/100 | 80/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 41/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLF leads
XLF leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLF, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLF over XLE, 69 versus 65 as of Oct 21, 2026. XLF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while XLE holds the stronger momentum profile. XLF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. XLF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Financial 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.
XLF 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 | XLF | XLE | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 80 | 24 | XLF |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 57.2% | 74% | XLF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.48% | 2.24% | XLE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.8% | -26.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.4% | 22.1% | 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 XLF 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 Resilience75 vs 41XLF +34
- Momentum66 vs 80XLE +14
- Value60 vs 54XLF +6
- Quality76 vs 75Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLF. XLF’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; XLE keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +8
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
XLF's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLF and XLE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
XLE (State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 19% against 11.9%.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | XLF | XLE | 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 | XLF | XLE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 80 | 24 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 34,029,966 | 30,850,634 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.4% | 22.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -15.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 2.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.58 | -0.42 | 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
XLF and XLE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
78 holdings are unique to XLF, 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 57.23% for XLF (24 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 XLF adds that XLE doesn’t
| Holding | XLF | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What XLE adds that XLF doesn’t
| Holding | XLE | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
XLF vs XLE: five-year payout growth
XLE grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.57% a year against XLF's 3.77%. XLE: The 2020 payout was 47.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | XLF | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 3.77% | 6.57% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.598 | $1.066 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.720 | $1.465 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #110 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
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 | 69 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLF | Value 60 vs 54 |
| Technicals | XLE | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs 6.7%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 17.5% |
| Risk Resilience | XLF | Risk Resilience 75 vs 41 |
| 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 XLF and XLE 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLF +4
- 69 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 65 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- XLF +7
- 60 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- XLF +3
- 67 vs 64
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when XLF moved ahead of XLE.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.28%)
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only XLE
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.57%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.28%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1XLE closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge.
- 2XLE's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3XLF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate XLF's advantage entirely.
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 | XLF | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.7% | 10% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.6% | 14.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.5% | 21.7% |
| Year to date | 1.7% | 51.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.7% | 59% |
Technicals
XLE has the stronger structure| Metric | XLF | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.1 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 26.1 | 22.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 17.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.9% | 19% |
Risk
XLF is the more resilient| Metric | XLF | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | -0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 3.16 |
| Max drawdown | -15.2% | -15.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -0.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.4% | 22.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLF and XLE?
XLF holds 80 positions to XLE's 24, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLF and XLE overlap?
XLF and XLE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 78 holdings are unique to XLF, 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, XLF or XLE?
XLF holds more positions: 80 versus 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 2.24% against 1.48% for XLF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLE has been more volatile over the past year, at 22.1% 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: -25.8% for XLF and -26.1% for XLE.
Compare XLF 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.