VOT vs XLF
Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
VOT has a lower expense ratio. XLF delivered stronger 1-year returns. VOT offers more diversification with 121 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | VOT | XLF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.05% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $19.9B | $56.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.65% | 1.51% | |
| Holdings | 136 | 80 | |
| YTD Return | +10.59% | +6.36% | |
| 1Y Return | +8.73% | +12.12% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.72% | +20.37% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.72% | +10.20% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.6% | 21.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.3% | -83.8% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 17, 2006 | Dec 16, 1998 |
VOT vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT) 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 VOT returned +8.73% while XLF returned +12.12%. Year to date, VOT is up 10.59% versus a gain of 6.36% for XLF.
Over three years, VOT compounded at +15.72% per year against +20.37% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +5.72% and +10.20% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VOT has the edge at +9.68% annualized vs +3.70%. 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 18.6% for VOT. 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 -60.3% for VOT 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VOT charges 0.05% per year while XLF charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $5 vs $8 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VOT currently yields 0.65% against 1.51% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
VOT and XLF share 8 holdings out of 190 unique holdings combined, representing a 4.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, VOT or XLF?
VOT has an expense ratio of 0.05% while XLF charges 0.08%. VOT is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $3 per year of difference.
Which performed better, VOT or XLF?
Over the past year VOT returned +8.73% vs +12.12% for XLF, so XLF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), VOT annualized +9.68% vs +3.70% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, VOT or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 18.6% for VOT. Worst drawdown: VOT -60.3% vs XLF -83.8%.
Should I hold both VOT and XLF?
VOT and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between VOT and XLF?
VOT and XLF share 8 common holdings with a 4.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 190 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, VOT or XLF?
VOT yields 0.65% while XLF yields 1.51%, 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.