XLK vs XLE ETF Comparison
Compare XLK and XLE across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between XLK and XLE?
XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XLE is State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF. XLK is tied to Equity; XLE is tied to Equity. XLK is broader by holdings count, with 43 positions versus 8 for XLE. XLK is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | XLK | XLE | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $122.0B | $42.1B | Fund |
| Holdings | 43 | 8 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 43.5% | 38.2% | Fund |
| Average volume | 6,005,380 | 19,304,821 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +43.3% | +44.8% | Performance |
| YTD return | +30.1% | +43.3% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 21.7% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -15.6% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.75 | -0.31 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.34 | 1.61 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 2.06 | 2.51 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 65/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 57/100 | 70/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 61/100 | 40/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLE leads
XLE leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLE, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLE over XLK, 65 versus 56 as of Sep 9, 2026. XLE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while XLK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. XLE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLE today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. XLE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF and State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare XLK and XLE 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.
- Value36 vs 64XLE +28
- Risk Resilience61 vs 40XLK +21
- Momentum57 vs 70XLE +13
- Quality74 vs 75Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLE. XLE’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; XLK keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-07, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-06.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
XLE's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and XLE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLE (State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
XLEXLE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLEXLE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
XLEXLE on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | XLK | XLE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $122.0B | $42.1B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 73 | 21 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,005,380 | 19,304,821 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 21.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -15.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.34 | 1.61 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.75 | -0.31 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
XLK and XLE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
XLK is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 43.54% of the fund, against 38.23% for XLE (43 holdings vs 8). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
43 holdings are unique to XLK and 8 to XLE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLK or XLE?
XLK currently has more reported holdings, with 43 positions versus 8.
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?
XLE has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
XLE currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 65 to 56.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLE | 56 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLE | Value 36 vs 64 |
| Technicals | XLE | Price vs 50-day 2.9% vs 9.4%; vs 200-day 16.8% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 61 vs 40 |
| 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 XLE 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 moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 XLE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 28 – Sep 7XLE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLE +9
- 56 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- XLE +12
- 55 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- XLE +3
- 59 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- XLE +1
- 50 vs 51
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 8 when XLE 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.88%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.97%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
XLK is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.32%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.11%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLE's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3XLE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
XLE leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XLK | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | 11.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.9% | 11.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.4% | 13.2% |
| Year to date | 30.1% | 43.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 43.3% | 44.8% |
Technicals
XLE has the stronger structure| Metric | XLK | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.9 | 60 |
| ADX (14) | 11.1 | 27.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.9% | 9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.8% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.9% | 21.6% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | XLK | XLE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | -0.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.34 | 1.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.06 | 2.51 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -15.6% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -1.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 21.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, XLK or XLE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 9, 2026, scoring 65 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from value and momentum. XLK is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 XLE the better buy right now?
XLE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 9, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 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 XLE over XLK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XLE leads Value by 28 points; XLK leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; XLE leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, XLK or XLE?
XLE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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 XLE?
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 XLE?
XLE on the Momentum factor, by 13 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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 XLE?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 21 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is XLK more profitable than XLE?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLE's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
XLE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-28 and 2026-09-07. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-08, when XLE moved ahead of XLK.
What would change the XLK vs XLE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLE's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; XLE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a 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.
What do the current signals say about XLK and XLE?
XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XLE: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 XLE it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare XLK and XLE with others
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.