VGT vs XLK ETF Comparison
Compare VGT and XLK across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between VGT and XLK?
VGT is Vanguard Information Technology ETF, while XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF. VGT is tied to Sector Equity; XLK is tied to Equity. VGT is broader by holdings count, with 319 positions versus 74 for XLK. VGT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | VGT | XLK | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.08% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $160.2B | $121.1B | Fund |
| Holdings | 319 | 74 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 101.9% | 100.4% | Fund |
| Average volume | 756,706 | 6,005,380 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Sector Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 108.9% | 26.4% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -85.1% | -16.1% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.18 | 1.75 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.16 | 1.33 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -0.76 | 2.05 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 35/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 6/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 8/100 | 55/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 22/100 | 61/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Information Technology ETF vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLK leads
XLK leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLK, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Information Technology ETF
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLK over VGT, 56 versus 35 as of Sep 5, 2026. XLK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. XLK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals.
Compare Vanguard Information Technology ETF and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare VGT 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.
- Momentum25%8 vs 55XLK +47
- Risk Resilience15%22 vs 61XLK +39
- Value30%28 vs 37XLK +9
- Quality30%71 vs 74Even
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLK. XLK’s edge is concentrated in momentum 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: Risk Resilience -14
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.37%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
XLK's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VGT and XLK 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 9 points.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 47 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK on Risk Resilience, by 39 points.
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 | VGT | XLK | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $160.2B | $121.1B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 310 | 73 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 756,706 | 6,005,380 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 108.9% | 26.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -85.1% | -16.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.16 | 1.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.18 | 1.75 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
VGT and XLK share 130.94% of their weighted exposure across 73 common holdings.
VGT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 101.9% of the fund, against 100.38% for XLK (319 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.
246 holdings are unique to VGT and 1 to XLK. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | VGT | XLK | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 32.51% | 25.98% | 25.98% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 21.93% | 20.42% | 20.42% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 17.16% | 14.91% | 14.91% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 7.64% | 8.02% | 7.64% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 6.35% | 7.64% | 6.35% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.21% | 4.56% | 4.21% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 3.38% | 4.55% | 3.38% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 3.31% | 5.96% | 3.31% |
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, VGT or XLK?
VGT currently has more reported holdings, with 319 positions versus 74.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLK has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VGT 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 35.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 35 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLK | Value 28 vs 37 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -83.2% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day n/a vs 16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 22 vs 61 |
| 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 VGT and XLK and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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
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 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.32%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.7%, 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.
- 1VGT closes the Momentum gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge.
- 2VGT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 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.
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | VGT | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 21.9 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 11.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -83.2% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | 16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 111.7% | 21.4% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | VGT | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.18 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.16 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.76 | 2.05 |
| Max drawdown | -85.1% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -84.9% | -6.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 108.9% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VGT or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against VGT's 35. The edge comes from momentum 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 VGT or XLK the better buy right now?
XLK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLK over VGT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLK leads Momentum by 47 points; XLK leads Risk Resilience by 39 points; XLK leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, VGT or XLK?
XLK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, VGT or XLK?
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, VGT or XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 47 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, VGT or XLK?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 39 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 VGT more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What would change the VGT vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VGT closes the Momentum gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge; VGT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; 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 VGT and XLK?
VGT: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. XLK: 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 VGT is BB Lower Band Breach (bullish, short horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VGT and XLK 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.