XLK vs SMH: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLK and SMH are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, while SMH is VanEck Semiconductor ETF. XLK is broader by holdings count, with 76 positions versus 27 for SMH. SMH is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLK ahead on AIQ Score, 47 versus 39.
What is the main difference between XLK and SMH?
XLK and SMH both concentrate in Technology, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 45% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLK | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 76 | 27 |
| Top-10 concentration | 61.2% | 71.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.45% | 0.2% |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 9,343,290 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +30.4% | +59.9% |
| YTD return | +28.8% | +51.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +19.4% | +33.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 39.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -24.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -33.6% | -45.3% |
| Beta | 1.77 | 2.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 1.88 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 39/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 15/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 29/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs VanEck Semiconductor ETF
XLK leads
XLK leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLK, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLK over SMH, 47 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. XLK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. XLK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF and VanEck Semiconductor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLK vs SMH: 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 | SMH | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | XLK |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 76 | 27 | XLK |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 61.2% | 71.6% | XLK |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.45% | 0.2% | XLK |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -33.6% | -45.3% | XLK |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 26.5% | 39.7% | XLK |
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 SMH 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 Resilience62 vs 29XLK +33
- Momentum27 vs 15XLK +12
- Quality73 vs 71Even
- Value31 vs 31Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLK. XLK’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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: Value -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
XLK's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and SMH both carry a full feed there.
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 | SMH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 76 | 27 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 9,343,290 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 39.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -24.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 1.28 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.77 | 2.38 | 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 SMH share 44.87% of their weighted exposure across 20 common holdings.
54 holdings are unique to XLK, and 5 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
SMH is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 71.61% of the fund, against 61.2% for XLK (27 holdings vs 76). 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 | XLK | SMH | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 14.31% | 22.43% | 14.31% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.62% | 5.9% | 4.62% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.23% | 5.73% | 4.23% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.11% | 5.64% | 4.11% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 3.27% | 4.34% | 3.27% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 2.46% | 4.29% | 2.46% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 2.38% | 4.23% | 2.38% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 1.56% | 4.25% | 1.56% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What XLK adds that SMH doesn’t
| Holding | XLK | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 12.98% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 9.9% | Not held |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 2.8% | Not held |
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC A | 2.52% | Not held |
| PANWPALO ALTO NETWORKS INC | 1.81% | Not held |
| ORCLORACLE CORP | 1.71% | Not held |
What SMH adds that XLK doesn’t
| Holding | SMH | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co L | 9.77% | Not held |
| ASMLAsml Holding Nv | 5.01% | Not held |
| ADIAnalog Devices Inc | 4.26% | 1.17% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 4.25% | 1.56% |
| QCOMQualcomm Inc | 4.2% | 1.23% |
| MRVLMarvell Technology Inc | 4.16% | 1.31% |
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 SMH: five-year payout growth
SMH grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 8.02% a year against XLK's 5.55%. SMH: The 2020 payout was 64.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SMH: The payout jumped 52.6% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | XLK | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.55% | 8.02% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.599 | $0.751 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.784 | $1.105 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #89 of 138 | #69 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 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 | 47 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 31 vs 31 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs 6.5% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 62 vs 29 |
| 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 SMH 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 8 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 XLK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLK +8
- 47 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- XLK +10
- 48 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +3
- 59 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- XLK +5
- 61 vs 56
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SMH
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.89%, 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.
- 1SMH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge.
- 2SMH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3XLK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.5% | -7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | -10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | -6.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | 17.6% |
| Year to date | 28.8% | 51.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.4% | 59.9% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | XLK | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.7 | 27.7 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 22.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | 6.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 26.2% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | XLK | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.77 | 2.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 1.88 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -18.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 39.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLK and SMH?
XLK and SMH both concentrate in Technology, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 45% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLK and SMH overlap?
XLK and SMH share 44.87% of their weighted exposure across 20 common holdings. 54 holdings are unique to XLK, and 5 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLK or SMH?
XLK holds more positions: 76 versus 27 for SMH.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLK has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.35% for SMH.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLK, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.45% against 0.2% for SMH.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SMH has been more volatile over the past year, at 39.7% annualized against 26.5% for XLK.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLK fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -33.6% against -45.3% for SMH.
Compare XLK and SMH 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.