VONG vs XLF
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
VONG has a lower expense ratio. VONG delivered stronger 1-year returns. VONG offers more diversification with 373 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | VONG | XLF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.06% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $51.6B | $58.6B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.48% | 1.42% | |
| Holdings | 373 | 80 | |
| YTD Return | +6.80% | +6.98% | |
| 1Y Return | +12.33% | +12.14% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.84% | +20.59% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.91% | +10.49% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.9% | 21.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7% | -83.8% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 20, 2010 | Dec 16, 1998 |
VONG vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG) 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 VONG returned +12.33% while XLF returned +12.14%. Year to date, VONG is up 6.80% versus a gain of 6.98% for XLF.
Over three years, VONG compounded at +22.84% per year against +20.59% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +12.91% and +10.49% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, VONG has the edge at +15.85% annualized vs +3.73%. 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 15.9% for VONG. 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 -32.7% for VONG 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 0.67. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VONG charges 0.06% per year while XLF charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $6 vs $8 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VONG currently yields 0.48% against 1.42% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
VONG and XLF share 16 holdings out of 432 unique holdings combined, representing a 3.8% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, VONG or XLF?
VONG has an expense ratio of 0.06% while XLF charges 0.08%. VONG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $2 per year of difference.
Which performed better, VONG or XLF?
Over the past year VONG returned +12.33% vs +12.14% for XLF, so VONG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), VONG annualized +15.85% vs +3.73% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, VONG or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 15.9% for VONG. Worst drawdown: VONG -32.7% vs XLF -83.8%.
Should I hold both VONG and XLF?
VONG and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.67, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between VONG and XLF?
VONG and XLF share 16 common holdings with a 3.8% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 432 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, VONG or XLF?
VONG yields 0.48% while XLF yields 1.42%, so XLF 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.