XLK vs VGT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLK and VGT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, while VGT is Vanguard Information Technology ETF. VGT is broader by holdings count, with 322 positions versus 76 for XLK. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VGT ahead on AIQ Score, 48 versus 47.
What is the main difference between XLK and VGT?
XLK and VGT both concentrate in Technology, at 100% and 99% of assets, and 80% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLK | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 76 | 322 |
| Top-10 concentration | 61.2% | 62.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.45% | 0.39% |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 4,245,287 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +30.4% | +28.2% |
| YTD return | +28.8% | +27.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +19.4% | +18.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 25% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -16.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -33.6% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 1.77 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 1.52 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 63/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs Vanguard Information Technology ETF
VGT leads
VGT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from XLK.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support VGT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
Vanguard Information Technology ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VGT over XLK, 48 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. VGT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum. VGT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. VGT lead: Reversed — XLK led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VGT now leads by 1.
Compare State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF and Vanguard Information Technology ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLK vs VGT: 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 | VGT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.09% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 76 | 322 | VGT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 61.2% | 62.4% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.45% | 0.39% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -33.6% | -35.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 26.5% | 25% | VGT |
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 VGT 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 32VGT +5
- Quality73 vs 71Even
- Value31 vs 32Even
- Risk Resilience62 vs 63Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor VGT. VGT’s edge is concentrated in 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: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
VGT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and VGT 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 | VGT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 76 | 322 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 4,245,287 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 25% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.96 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.77 | 1.71 | 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 VGT share 80.28% of their weighted exposure across 73 common holdings.
1 holding is unique to XLK, and 246 holdings are unique to VGT. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
VGT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 62.39% of the fund, against 61.2% for XLK (322 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 | VGT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 14.31% | 17.16% | 14.31% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 12.98% | 16.26% | 12.98% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 9.9% | 10.96% | 9.9% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.62% | 4.21% | 4.21% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.11% | 3.82% | 3.82% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 4.23% | 3.18% | 3.18% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 2.8% | 1.91% | 1.91% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIALS INC | 2.38% | 1.69% | 1.69% |
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 VGT doesn’t
| Holding | XLK | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC A | 2.52% | 1.14% |
| SNDKSANDISK CORP | 1.66% | 0.76% |
| CRMSALESFORCE INC | 1.31% | 0.65% |
What VGT adds that XLK doesn’t
| Holding | VGT | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 0.44% | Not held |
| NETCloudflare Inc | 0.42% | Not held |
| ALABAstera Labs Inc | 0.23% | Not held |
| CRDOCredo Technology Group Holding Ltd | 0.2% | Not held |
| OKTAOkta Inc | 0.18% | Not held |
| TWLOTwilio Inc | 0.17% | 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 VGT: five-year payout growth
XLK grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.55% a year against VGT's 0.91%.
| Dividend metric | XLK | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.55% | 0.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.599 | $0.364 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.784 | $0.381 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #89 of 138 | #126 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
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 47 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 31 vs 32 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs 10.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 63 |
| 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 VGT 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 VGT.
How the comparison changed
100 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20VGT lead: Reversed — XLK led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VGT now leads by 1.
- Today
- VGT +1
- 47 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- VGT +1
- 48 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +1
- 59 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- XLK +2
- 59 vs 57
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when XLK moved ahead of VGT.
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.
XLK and VGT carry the same 3 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VGT 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.71%, 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 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to VGT's edge.
- 2XLK's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VGT'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
Split across windows| Metric | XLK | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.5% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | -4.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | 19% |
| Year to date | 28.8% | 27.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.4% | 28.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | XLK | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.7 | 35 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 21.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | 10.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 18.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | XLK | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.77 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 1.52 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -7.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 25% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLK and VGT?
XLK and VGT both concentrate in Technology, at 100% and 99% of assets, and 80% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLK and VGT overlap?
XLK and VGT share 80.28% of their weighted exposure across 73 common holdings. 1 holding is unique to XLK, and 246 holdings are unique to VGT. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLK or VGT?
VGT holds more positions: 322 versus 76 for XLK.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.08% for XLK and 0.09% for VGT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.45% for XLK and 0.39% for VGT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLK has been more volatile over the past year, at 26.5% annualized against 25% for VGT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -33.6% for XLK and -35.1% for VGT.
Compare XLK and VGT 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.