VCIT vs XLF
Vanguard Intermediate Term Corporate Bond ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
VCIT has a lower expense ratio. XLF delivered stronger 1-year returns. VCIT offers more diversification with 2019 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | VCIT | XLF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $67.3B | $56.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.77% | 1.51% | |
| Holdings | 2,253 | 80 | |
| YTD Return | -0.86% | +6.16% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.08% | +13.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.97% | +20.20% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.79% | +10.45% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 6.0% | 21.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -20.7% | -83.8% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Nov 19, 2009 | Dec 16, 1998 |
VCIT vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Intermediate Term Corporate Bond ETF (VCIT) 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 VCIT returned +2.08% while XLF returned +13.27%. Year to date, VCIT is down 0.86% versus a gain of 6.16% for XLF.
Over three years, VCIT compounded at +5.97% per year against +20.20% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +0.79% and +10.45% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, XLF has the edge at +3.70% annualized vs +1.72%. 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 6.0% for VCIT. 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 -20.7% for VCIT 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 0.29. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VCIT 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, VCIT currently yields 4.77% against 1.51% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
VCIT and XLF share 1 holdings out of 2095 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 VCIT | Weight in XLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AON | 0.04% | 0.96% | 0.92% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, VCIT or XLF?
VCIT has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XLF charges 0.08%. VCIT is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, VCIT or XLF?
Over the past year VCIT returned +2.08% vs +13.27% for XLF, so XLF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), VCIT annualized +1.72% vs +3.70% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, VCIT or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 6.0% for VCIT. Worst drawdown: VCIT -20.7% vs XLF -83.8%.
Should I hold both VCIT and XLF?
VCIT and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.29, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between VCIT and XLF?
VCIT and XLF share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2095 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, VCIT or XLF?
VCIT yields 4.77% while XLF yields 1.51%, so VCIT 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.