VONG vs XLF
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Which is better, VONG or XLF?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Value.
VONG has a lower expense ratio. VONG led over 1Y, 5Y and the full window, XLF over 3Y. VONG is less concentrated, with 54.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.7%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | VONG | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.06%Best | 0.08% |
| AUM | $43.5B | $54.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.48% | 1.42% |
| Holdings | 373 | 80 |
| YTD Return | +4.90% | +7.53%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.29%Best | +11.16% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.26% | +21.41%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.83%Best | +10.90% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.9%Best | 19.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -43.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,490Best | $16,775 |
| Top 10 Weight | 54.3%Best | 56.7% |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Sep 20, 2010 | Dec 16, 1998 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 22, 2010 to Sep 3, 2026 (15.9 years).
VONG vs XLF growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 15.9 years both funds cover.
VONG vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG) is an ETF from Vanguard (US) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year VONG returned +11.29% while XLF returned +11.16%. Year to date, VONG is up 4.90% versus a gain of 7.53% for XLF.
Over three years, VONG compounded at +21.26% per year against +21.41% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +11.83% and +10.90% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, VONG has the edge at +15.65% annualized vs +9.80%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XLF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.1% 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 -43.3% for XLF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.67. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
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
3.9% of VONG's money is in holdings XLF also owns. 33.5% of XLF's money is in holdings VONG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
17 positions in common, counted across the 371 positions we hold weights for in VONG and 77 in XLF, against full books of 373 and 80.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 59 positions for XLF that do not appear in our book for VONG (66.0% of the fund), and 290 for VONG that do not appear in XLF (95.7%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in VONG | Weight in XLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.58% | 7.29% | 5.71% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.23% | 5.52% | 4.29% |
| BACBank Of America Corp | 0.08% | 5.17% | 5.09% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 0.10% | 2.87% | 2.77% |
| AXPAmerican Express Co. | 0.15% | 2.24% | 2.09% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 0.03% | 2.19% | 2.16% |
| BXBlackstone Group Inc. Class A | 0.20% | 1.33% | 1.13% |
| BKBank Of New York Mellon Corp | 0.02% | 1.37% | 1.35% |
| HOODRobinhood Markets Inc - A | 0.19% | 0.92% | 0.73% |
| KKRKkr & Co. Inc. Class a | 0.04% | 0.94% | 0.90% |
33.5% of XLF is already inside VONG.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
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, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, VONG or XLF?
Over the past year VONG returned +11.29% vs +11.16% for XLF, so VONG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), VONG annualized +15.65% vs +9.80% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, VONG or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 19.1% annualized versus 15.9% for VONG. Worst drawdown: VONG -32.7% vs XLF -43.3%.
Should I hold both VONG and XLF?
VONG and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.67, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between VONG and XLF?
33.5% of XLF's money is in holdings VONG also owns. 33.5% of XLF's is in holdings VONG also owns. They hold 17 positions in common, counted across the 371 positions we hold weights for in VONG and 77 in XLF.
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.
Is XLF better than VONG?
VONG has a lower expense ratio. VONG led over 1Y, 5Y and the full window, XLF over 3Y. VONG is less concentrated, with 54.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.