BSV vs XLF
Vanguard Short-Term Bond ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
BSV has a lower expense ratio. XLF delivered stronger 1-year returns. BSV offers more diversification with 2787 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BSV | XLF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $44.8B | $56.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.98% | 1.51% | |
| Holdings | 3,125 | 80 | |
| YTD Return | +0.30% | +6.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.30% | +13.25% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.43% | +20.31% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.57% | +10.19% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.4% | 21.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -9.0% | -83.8% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 3, 2007 | Dec 16, 1998 |
BSV vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Short-Term Bond ETF (BSV) 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 BSV returned +2.30% while XLF returned +13.25%. Year to date, BSV is up 0.30% versus a gain of 6.14% for XLF.
Over three years, BSV compounded at +4.43% per year against +20.31% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +1.57% and +10.19% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, XLF has the edge at +3.70% annualized vs +0.91%. 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 2.4% for BSV. 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 -9.0% for BSV 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 0.04. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BSV 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, BSV currently yields 3.98% against 1.51% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BSV or XLF?
BSV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XLF charges 0.08%. BSV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BSV or XLF?
Over the past year BSV returned +2.30% vs +13.25% for XLF, so XLF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), BSV annualized +0.91% vs +3.70% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BSV or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 2.4% for BSV. Worst drawdown: BSV -9.0% vs XLF -83.8%.
Should I hold both BSV and XLF?
BSV and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.04, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BSV and XLF?
BSV and XLF share 2 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2862 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BSV or XLF?
BSV yields 3.98% while XLF yields 1.51%, so BSV 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.