XLG vs XLK: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLG and XLK are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLG is Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF, while XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLK is broader by holdings count, with 76 positions versus 54 for XLG. XLK has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLG ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 47.
What is the main difference between XLG and XLK?
XLG and XLK both concentrate in Technology, at 51% and 100% of assets, and 50% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 54 | 76 |
| Top-10 concentration | 60.3% | 61.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.62% | 0.45% |
| Average volume | 1,321,849 | 8,649,991 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +10.9% | +30.4% |
| YTD return | +7% | +28.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +13.7% | +19.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 26.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.7% | -16.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28% | -33.6% |
| Beta | 1.10 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | 1.55 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 27/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 62/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLG leads
XLG leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLG over XLK, 57 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. XLG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while XLK holds the stronger quality profile. XLG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLG vs XLK: 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 | XLG | XLK | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.2% | 0.08% | XLK |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 54 | 76 | XLK |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 60.3% | 61.2% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.62% | 0.45% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28% | -33.6% | XLG |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.7% | 26.5% | XLG |
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 XLG and XLK 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.
- Momentum60 vs 27XLG +33
- Risk Resilience83 vs 62XLG +21
- Quality59 vs 73XLK +14
- Value40 vs 31XLG +9
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLG. XLG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; XLK keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
XLG's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLG and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 19.5% against 10.9%.
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 | XLG | XLK | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 54 | 76 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,321,849 | 8,649,991 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 26.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.7% | -16.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.98 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.10 | 1.77 | 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
XLG and XLK share 50.2% of their weighted exposure across 17 common holdings.
35 holdings are unique to XLG, and 57 holdings are unique to XLK. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
XLK is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 61.2% of the fund, against 60.29% for XLG (76 holdings vs 54). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | XLG | XLK | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 12.77% | 14.31% | 12.77% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 11.58% | 12.98% | 11.58% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 8.83% | 9.9% | 8.83% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.12% | 4.62% | 4.12% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 2.66% | 4.11% | 2.66% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 1.99% | 4.23% | 1.99% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 1.2% | 3.27% | 1.2% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 1.02% | 2.8% | 1.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What XLG adds that XLK doesn’t
| Holding | XLG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.95% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.71% | Not held |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 3.77% | Not held |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.42% | Not held |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.47% | Not held |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 2.29% | Not held |
What XLK adds that XLG doesn’t
| Holding | XLK | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 4.23% | 1.99% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 3.27% | 1.2% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 2.8% | 1.02% |
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC A | 2.52% | 0.92% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH CORP | 2.46% | 0.9% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIALS INC | 2.38% | 0.87% |
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.
XLG vs XLK: five-year payout growth
XLK grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.55% a year against XLG's 1.28%.
| Dividend metric | XLG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 1.28% | 5.55% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.357 | $0.599 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.380 | $0.784 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #123 of 138 | #89 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 XLG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLG | 57 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLG | Value 40 vs 31 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 0.9% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 4.8% vs 10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | XLG | Risk Resilience 83 vs 62 |
| 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 XLG and XLK 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 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 XLG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XLG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLG +10
- 57 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- XLG +8
- 56 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- XLK +1
- 60 vs 61
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Oct 2 when XLG moved ahead of XLK.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.10%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.1%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only XLK
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
XLG 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.63%, AIQ 0 points).
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).
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 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLG's edge.
- 2XLK's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3XLG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
Split across windows| Metric | XLG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | -5.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.5% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 19.9% |
| Year to date | 7% | 28.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.9% | 30.4% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | XLG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.3 | 32.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 22.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.9% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.8% | 10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.9% | 19.5% |
Risk
XLG is the more resilient| Metric | XLG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.1 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -12.7% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.5% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLG and XLK?
XLG and XLK both concentrate in Technology, at 51% and 100% of assets, and 50% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLG and XLK overlap?
XLG and XLK share 50.2% of their weighted exposure across 17 common holdings. 35 holdings are unique to XLG, and 57 holdings are unique to XLK. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLG or XLK?
XLK holds more positions: 76 versus 54 for XLG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLK has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.2% for XLG.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.62% for XLG and 0.45% for XLK.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLK has been more volatile over the past year, at 26.5% annualized against 14.7% for XLG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLG fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28% against -33.6% for XLK.
Compare XLG and XLK 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.