XLK vs FTEC ETF Comparison
Compare XLK and FTEC across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between XLK and FTEC?
XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, while FTEC is Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF. XLK is tied to Equity; FTEC is tied to Equity. FTEC is broader by holdings count, with 290 positions versus 74 for XLK. FTEC is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | XLK | FTEC | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $121.1B | $19.9B | Fund |
| Holdings | 74 | 290 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 100.4% | 103.5% | Fund |
| Average volume | 6,005,380 | 463,468 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +43.2% | +40.6% | Performance |
| YTD return | +29.2% | +28.4% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 24.9% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -16.4% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.75 | 1.70 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 1.32 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 2.04 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 49/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 3/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 55/100 | 57/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 61/100 | 62/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
XLK leads
XLK leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support XLK, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLK over FTEC, 56 versus 49 as of Sep 5, 2026. XLK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. XLK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. XLK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF and Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare XLK and FTEC 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.
- Quality30%74 vs 55XLK +19
- Value30%36 vs 30XLK +6
- Momentum25%55 vs 57Even
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 62Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor XLK. XLK’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
XLK's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and FTEC both carry a full feed there.
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
XLKXLK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLKXLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | FTEC | 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 | $19.9B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 73 | 294 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,005,380 | 463,468 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 24.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -16.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 1.32 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.75 | 1.70 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
XLK and FTEC share 127.68% of their weighted exposure across 71 common holdings.
FTEC is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 103.54% of the fund, against 100.38% for XLK (290 holdings vs 74). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
3 holdings are unique to XLK and 219 to FTEC. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | XLK | FTEC | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 25.98% | 32.68% | 25.98% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 20.42% | 23.13% | 20.42% |
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 14.91% | 18.32% | 14.91% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 8.02% | 8.37% | 8.02% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC | 7.64% | 5.74% | 5.74% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.56% | 4.35% | 4.35% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 5.96% | 3.16% | 3.16% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH CORP | 4.82% | 2.9% | 2.9% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLK or FTEC?
FTEC currently has more reported holdings, with 290 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?
XLK has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
XLK currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 56 to 49.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLK | 56 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLK | Value 36 vs 30 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 2.6% vs 3.4%; vs 200-day 16.1% vs 16.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 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 XLK and FTEC 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 XLK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4XLK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLK +7
- 56 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- XLK +7
- 56 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +6
- 61 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- XLK +3
- 51 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 16 when XLK moved ahead of FTEC.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.19%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
XLK 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 +0.7%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.29%, 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.
- 1FTEC closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge.
- 2FTEC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3XLK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | XLK | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.3% | 1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | -1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 32.7% | 31.9% |
| Year to date | 29.2% | 28.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 43.2% | 40.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | XLK | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.9 | 45.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.3 | 12 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.6% | 3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.1% | 16.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.4% | 21.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | XLK | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | 1.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 1.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 2.04 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -6.2% | -4% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 24.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, XLK or FTEC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against FTEC's 49. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 FTEC the better buy right now?
XLK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLK over FTEC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLK leads Quality by 19 points; XLK leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, XLK or FTEC?
XLK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 FTEC?
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 FTEC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 FTEC?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. 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 FTEC?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLK's lead over FTEC getting stronger or weaker?
XLK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-16, when XLK moved ahead of FTEC.
What would change the XLK vs FTEC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FTEC closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge; FTEC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; XLK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 FTEC?
XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FTEC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 FTEC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare XLK and FTEC 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.