VT vs XLF
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
VT has a lower expense ratio. VT delivered stronger 1-year returns. VT offers more diversification with 8927 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | VT | XLF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.06% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $77.6B | $56.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.61% | 1.51% | |
| Holdings | 10,133 | 80 | |
| YTD Return | +14.19% | +5.77% | |
| 1Y Return | +25.25% | +13.87% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.36% | +19.87% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.17% | +10.61% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.6% | 21.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -50.6% | -83.8% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 24, 2008 | Dec 16, 1998 |
VT vs XLF Performance
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF (VT) 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 VT returned +25.25% while XLF returned +13.87%. Year to date, VT is up 14.19% versus a gain of 5.77% for XLF.
Over three years, VT compounded at +20.36% per year against +19.87% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +11.17% and +10.61% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, VT has the edge at +7.37% annualized vs +3.69%. 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 16.6% for VT. 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 -50.6% for VT 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 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VT 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, VT currently yields 1.61% against 1.51% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
VT and XLF share 67 holdings out of 8937 unique holdings combined, representing a 6.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, VT or XLF?
VT has an expense ratio of 0.06% while XLF charges 0.08%. VT is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $2 per year of difference.
Which performed better, VT or XLF?
Over the past year VT returned +25.25% vs +13.87% for XLF, so VT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), VT annualized +7.37% vs +3.69% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, VT or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 21.4% annualized versus 16.6% for VT. Worst drawdown: VT -50.6% vs XLF -83.8%.
Should I hold both VT and XLF?
VT and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between VT and XLF?
VT and XLF share 67 common holdings with a 6.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 8937 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, VT or XLF?
VT yields 1.61% while XLF yields 1.51%, so VT 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.