Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AVUS vs XLV: how they differ

AVUS and XLV hold 6% of their weight in the same names, and AVUS returned more over the year.

Avantis U.S. Equity ETF and State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AVUS and XLV hold 6% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions AVUS and XLV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingAVUSXLV
Eli Lilly & Co0.84%16.56%
Merck & Co Inc0.63%5.54%
Johnson & Johnson0.58%10.67%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.45%2.74%
AbbVie Inc0.34%7.76%
Amgen Inc0.20%3.41%
Pfizer Inc0.18%2.40%
UnitedHealth Group Inc0.17%6.59%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co0.15%2.05%
Centene Corp0.14%0.53%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc0.14%2.20%
Elevance Health Inc0.14%1.47%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AVUSOnly in XLV
NVIDIA Corp 5.49%Medtronic PLC 1.75%
Apple Inc 5.37%Becton Dickinson & Co 0.73%
Microsoft Corp 3.85%GE HealthCare Technologies Inc 0.51%
Amazon.com Inc 3.68%Quest Diagnostics Inc 0.41%
Alphabet Inc 2.42%STERIS PLC 0.36%
Micron Technology Inc 2.40%Revvity Inc 0.22%
Meta Platforms Inc 2.21%Henry Schein Inc 0.14%
Alphabet Inc 1.94%DaVita Inc 0.12%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

AVUS and XLV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AVUS
Avantis U.S. Equity ETF
XLV
State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerAvantisState Street
What it isU.S. EquityHealth care
Total return, 1 year+21.6%+20.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.1 pts+2.9 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50084.4%100.0%
Holdings187559

AVUS in plain words

AVUS is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 84% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1875 positions, with the top ten at 29.7%.

XLV in plain words

XLV is an index equity fund tracking the Health care. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 59 positions, with the top ten at 61.7%. It sat 5.9% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AVUS or XLV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AVUS returned +21.6% and XLV returned +20.4%, so AVUS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AVUS or XLV?
AVUS charges 0.15% a year and XLV charges 0.08%, so XLV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do AVUS and XLV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 84% of AVUS and 100% of XLV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 6% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

AVUS against XLV, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, AVUS against XLV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/AVUS-XLV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources