XLU vs XOP: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLU and XOP are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLU is State Street Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF, while XOP is State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF. XOP is broader by holdings count, with 54 positions versus 34 for XLU. XLU is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLU ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 62.
What is the main difference between XLU and XOP?
XLU and XOP have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLU | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 34 | 54 |
| Top-10 concentration | 58.7% | 31% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.85% | 1.56% |
| Average volume | 23,762,888 | 2,969,350 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -7% | +56% |
| YTD return | -0.5% | +58.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +8% | +15.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.6% | 28.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.8% | -18.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.3% | -35% |
| Beta | 0.11 | -0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 1.63 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 2.48 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 64/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 68/100 | 70/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 33/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF
XLU leads
XLU leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support XLU, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF
State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLU over XOP, 64 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. XLU also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor XLU today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. XLU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF and State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLU vs XOP: 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 | XLU | XOP | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | XLU |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 34 | 54 | XOP |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 58.7% | 31% | XOP |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.85% | 1.56% | XLU |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.3% | -35% | XLU |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.6% | 28.7% | XLU |
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 XLU and XOP 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 33XLU +29
- Quality73 vs 69XLU +4
- Momentum68 vs 70Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor XLU. XLU’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
XLU's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLU and XOP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLU (State Street Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
XOP (State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 25.6% against 17%.
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 | XLU | XOP | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 34 | 54 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 23,762,888 | 2,969,350 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.6% | 28.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.8% | -18.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 1.63 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.11 | -0.51 | 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
XLU and XOP share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
32 holdings are unique to XLU, and 52 holdings are unique to XOP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLU is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 58.7% of the fund, against 31% for XOP (34 holdings vs 54). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What XLU adds that XOP doesn’t
| Holding | XLU | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| NEENEXTERA ENERGY INC | 12.99% | Not held |
| SOSOUTHERN CO/THE | 7.48% | Not held |
| DUKDUKE ENERGY CORP | 7.03% | Not held |
| CEGCONSTELLATION ENERGY | 6.91% | Not held |
| AEPAMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER | 5.08% | Not held |
| DDOMINION ENERGY INC | 4.32% | Not held |
What XOP adds that XLU doesn’t
| Holding | XOP | XLU |
|---|---|---|
| PBFPBF ENERGY INC CLASS A | 3.89% | Not held |
| DINOHF SINCLAIR CORP | 3.27% | Not held |
| DKDELEK US HOLDINGS INC | 3.27% | Not held |
| VLOVALERO ENERGY CORP | 3.21% | Not held |
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM CORP | 3.2% | Not held |
| PARRPAR PACIFIC HOLDINGS INC | 3.12% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor XLU. 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 | 64 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | XOP | Price vs 50-day 4% vs 6.6%; vs 200-day -4.1% vs 17.9% |
| Risk Resilience | XLU | Risk Resilience 62 vs 33 |
| 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 XLU and XOP 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 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 XLU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28XLU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLU +2
- 64 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 65 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- XOP +5
- 56 vs 61
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when XLU moved ahead of XOP.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLU
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.05%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.42%)
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only XOP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.43%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
XLU 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 +0.67%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.13%, 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.
- 1XOP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLU's edge.
- 2XOP's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3XLU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
XOP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XLU | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.7% | 11.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.9% | 14.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7% | 12.7% |
| Year to date | -0.5% | 58.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7% | 56% |
Technicals
XOP has the stronger structure| Metric | XLU | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.4 | 58.9 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 22.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4% | 6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.1% | 17.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17% | 25.6% |
Risk
XLU is the more resilient| Metric | XLU | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.11 | -0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 1.63 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 2.48 |
| Max drawdown | -17.8% | -18.7% |
| Current drawdown | -11% | -2.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.6% | 28.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLU and XOP?
XLU and XOP have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLU and XOP overlap?
XLU and XOP share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 32 holdings are unique to XLU, and 52 holdings are unique to XOP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLU or XOP?
XOP holds more positions: 54 versus 34 for XLU.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLU has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.35% for XOP.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XLU, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.85% against 1.56% for XOP.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XOP has been more volatile over the past year, at 28.7% annualized against 15.6% for XLU.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLU fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.3% against -35% for XOP.
Compare XLU and XOP 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.