XLK vs XLF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLK and XLF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLF is State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLK is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLF ahead on AIQ Score, 69 versus 47.
What is the main difference between XLK and XLF?
XLK and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 76 | 80 |
| Top-10 concentration | 61.2% | 57.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.45% | 1.48% |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 34,029,966 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +30.4% | +7.7% |
| YTD return | +28.8% | +1.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +19.4% | +8.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 14.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -15.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -33.6% | -25.8% |
| Beta | 1.77 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 0.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 69/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 66/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLF leads
XLF leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 1 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 Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLF over XLK, 69 versus 47 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 lead has swung materially session to session. XLF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 22 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.
XLK 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 | XLK | XLF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 76 | 80 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 61.2% | 57.2% | XLF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.45% | 1.48% | XLF |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -33.6% | -25.8% | XLF |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 26.5% | 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 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.
- Momentum27 vs 66XLF +39
- Value31 vs 60XLF +29
- Risk Resilience62 vs 75XLF +13
- Quality73 vs 76Even
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 -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
XLF's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
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 momentum and value.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 19.5% against 11.9%.
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 | — | -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 | XLK | XLF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 76 | 80 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 34,029,966 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 14.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -15.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.26 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.77 | 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
XLK and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
74 holdings are unique to XLK, and 78 holdings are unique to XLF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLK is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 61.2% of the fund, against 57.23% for XLF (76 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 XLK adds that XLF doesn’t
| Holding | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 14.31% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 12.98% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 9.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.62% | Not held |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 4.23% | Not held |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.11% | Not held |
What XLF adds that XLK doesn’t
| Holding | XLF | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
XLK vs XLF: five-year payout growth
XLK grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.55% a year against XLF's 3.77%.
| Dividend metric | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.55% | 3.77% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.599 | $0.598 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.784 | $0.720 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #89 of 138 | #110 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 | 47 vs 69 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLF | Value 31 vs 60 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | XLF | Risk Resilience 62 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 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 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XLF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XLF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLF +22
- 47 vs 69
- 7 sessions ago
- XLF +17
- 48 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- XLF +1
- 59 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- XLF +6
- 61 vs 67
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when XLK moved ahead of XLF.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only XLK
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.67%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLF's edge.
- 2XLK's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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
XLK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.5% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | -0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | 6.5% |
| Year to date | 28.8% | 1.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.4% | 7.7% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.7 | 74.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 11.9% |
Risk
XLF is the more resilient| Metric | XLK | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.77 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 0.38 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 14.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLK and XLF?
XLK and XLF have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLK and XLF overlap?
XLK and XLF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 74 holdings are unique to XLK, 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, XLK or XLF?
They hold a similar number of positions: 76 for XLK and 80 for XLF.
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 0.45% for XLK.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLK has been more volatile over the past year, at 26.5% 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 -33.6% for XLK.
Compare XLK 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.