BIV vs XLF
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
BIV has a lower expense ratio. XLF delivered stronger 1-year returns. BIV offers more diversification with 2,321 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BIV | XLF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $29.3B | $56.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.18% | 1.51% | |
| Holdings | 2,321 | 80 | |
| YTD Return | -0.60% | +6.98% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.50% | +12.14% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.67% | +20.59% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.21% | +10.49% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.7% | 21.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -20.3% | -83.8% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 3, 2007 | Dec 16, 1998 |
BIV vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF (BIV) is a ETF from Vanguard (US) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year BIV returned +1.50% while XLF returned +12.14%. Year to date, BIV is down 0.60% versus a gain of 6.98% for XLF.
Over three years, BIV compounded at +4.67% per year against +20.59% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are -0.21% and +10.49% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, XLF has the edge at +3.73% annualized vs +1.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XLF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.4% compared with 5.7% for BIV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -20.3% for BIV and -83.8% for XLF. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.07. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BIV charges 0.03% per year while XLF charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $8 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BIV currently yields 4.18% against 1.51% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
BIV and XLF share 1 holdings out of 2177 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BIV | Weight in XLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AON | 0.01% | 0.96% | 0.95% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BIV or XLF?
BIV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XLF charges 0.08%. BIV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BIV or XLF?
Over the past year BIV returned +1.50% vs +12.14% for XLF, so XLF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), BIV annualized +1.00% vs +3.73% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BIV or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 5.7% for BIV. Worst drawdown: BIV -20.3% vs XLF -83.8%.
Should I hold both BIV and XLF?
BIV and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.07, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BIV and XLF?
BIV and XLF share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2177 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BIV or XLF?
BIV yields 4.18% while XLF yields 1.51%, so BIV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.