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

DYNF vs XLI: how they differ

DYNF and XLI hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and State Street(R) Industrial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and XLI hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DYNF and XLI both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDYNFXLI
Parker-Hannifin Corp1.50%2.14%
Caterpillar Inc1.28%8.52%
Deere & Co0.89%2.77%
RTX Corp0.85%4.44%
Eaton Corp PLC0.75%2.87%
Trane Technologies PLC0.72%1.89%
GE Vernova Inc0.62%5.48%
General Electric Co0.57%6.77%
Howmet Aerospace Inc0.14%1.87%
Automatic Data Processing Inc0.13%1.55%
Northrop Grumman Corp0.12%1.18%
Lockheed Martin Corp0.09%1.79%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DYNFOnly in XLI
NVIDIA Corp 8.62%Boeing Co/The 2.96%
Apple Inc 7.75%Quanta Services Inc 1.88%
Microsoft Corp 5.35%Cummins Inc 1.71%
Amazon.com Inc 4.42%General Dynamics Corp 1.56%
JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.59%CSX Corp 1.53%
Broadcom Inc 3.25%3M Co 1.47%
Alphabet Inc 2.87%Emerson Electric Co 1.39%
Cisco Systems Inc 2.76%United Rentals Inc 1.23%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

DYNF and XLI on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
XLI
State Street(R) Industrial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isU.S. Equity Factor Rotation ActiveIndustrials
Total return, 1 year+20.8%+14.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.3 pts−3.3 pts
Expense ratio0.26%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50098.8%100.0%
Holdings18781

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.

XLI in plain words

XLI is an index equity fund tracking the Industrials. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.3% 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 81 positions, with the top ten at 41.4%. It sat 7.6% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or XLI?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and XLI returned +14.3%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DYNF or XLI?
DYNF charges 0.26% a year and XLI charges 0.08%, so XLI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DYNF and XLI overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 100% of XLI by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 8% 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.

DYNF against XLI, 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, DYNF against XLI, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-XLI Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources