BND vs XLF
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
BND has a lower expense ratio. XLF delivered stronger 1-year returns. BND offers more diversification with 10790 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BND | XLF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $159.8B | $56.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.94% | 1.51% | |
| Holdings | 17,528 | 80 | |
| YTD Return | -0.53% | +6.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.89% | +13.25% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.22% | +20.31% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.29% | +10.19% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.6% | 21.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -19.6% | -83.8% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 3, 2007 | Dec 16, 1998 |
BND vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) 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 BND returned +1.89% while XLF returned +13.25%. Year to date, BND is down 0.53% versus a gain of 6.14% for XLF.
Over three years, BND compounded at +4.22% per year against +20.31% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are -0.29% and +10.19% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, XLF has the edge at +3.70% annualized vs +0.67%. 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 4.6% for BND. 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 -19.6% for BND 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 0.10. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BND 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, BND currently yields 3.94% against 1.51% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
BND and XLF share 1 holdings out of 10866 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 BND | Weight in XLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AON | 0.00% | 0.96% | 0.96% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BND or XLF?
BND has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XLF charges 0.08%. BND is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BND or XLF?
Over the past year BND returned +1.89% vs +13.25% for XLF, so XLF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), BND annualized +0.67% vs +3.70% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BND or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 4.6% for BND. Worst drawdown: BND -19.6% vs XLF -83.8%.
Should I hold both BND and XLF?
BND and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.10, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BND and XLF?
BND and XLF share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 10866 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BND or XLF?
BND yields 3.94% while XLF yields 1.51%, so BND 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.