XLK vs XLF ETF Comparison
Compare XLK and XLF across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between XLK and XLF?
XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLF is State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLK is tied to Equity; XLF is tied to Equity. XLF is broader by holdings count, with 77 positions versus 74 for XLK. XLK is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | XLK | XLF | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $121.1B | $55.4B | Fund |
| Holdings | 74 | 77 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 100.4% | 84.8% | Fund |
| Average volume | 6,005,380 | 56,922,227 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 14.6% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -15.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.75 | 0.61 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 0.43 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 0.61 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 68/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 10/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 55/100 | 64/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 61/100 | 76/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLF leads
XLF leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLF, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLF over XLK, 68 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. XLF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. 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 Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Technology 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.
Compare XLK 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.
- Value30%37 vs 59XLF +22
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 76XLF +15
- Momentum25%55 vs 64XLF +9
- Quality30%74 vs 76Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLF. XLF’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No new signals fired.
XLF's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and XLF 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 value and risk resilience.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 21.4% against 11.8%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
XLFXLF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLFXLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
XLFXLF on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
XLFXLF on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | XLK | XLF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | -32.9% | 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 | XLK | XLF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $121.1B | $55.4B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 73 | 76 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,005,380 | 56,922,227 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 14.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -15.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 0.43 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.75 | 0.61 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
XLK and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
XLK is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 100.38% of the fund, against 84.83% for XLF (74 holdings vs 77). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
74 holdings are unique to XLK and 77 to XLF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLK or XLF?
XLF currently has more reported holdings, with 77 positions versus 74.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The current fund profile does not show a lower-cost winner.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLK has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLF has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
XLF currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 68 to 56.
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 | 56 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLF | Value 37 vs 59 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 2.6% vs 2.4%; vs 200-day 16.1% vs 9.6% |
| Risk Resilience | XLF | Risk Resilience 61 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 XLK 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 12 points. (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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3XLF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLF +12
- 56 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- XLF +12
- 56 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- XLF +13
- 59 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- XLF +18
- 51 vs 69
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.00%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.19%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
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 +0.7%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.79%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3XLF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.9 | 53.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.3 | 20 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.6% | 2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.1% | 9.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.4% | 11.8% |
Risk
XLF is the more resilient| Metric | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | 0.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 0.61 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -6.2% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 14.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, XLK or XLF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 68 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is XLK or XLF the better buy right now?
XLF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLF over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLF leads Value by 22 points; XLF leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; XLF leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, XLK or XLF?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for XLK and -32.9% for XLF. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, XLK or XLF?
XLF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, XLK or XLF?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, XLK or XLF?
XLF on the Momentum factor, by 9 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, XLK or XLF?
XLF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLF on Risk Resilience, by 15 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is XLK more profitable than XLF?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLF's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
XLF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the XLK vs XLF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; XLF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about XLK and XLF?
XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XLF: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on XLK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XLF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare XLK and XLF with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.