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

ONEQ vs XLC: how they differ

ONEQ and XLC hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF and State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ONEQ and XLC hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ONEQ and XLC both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingONEQXLC
ALPHABET INC4.85%13.10%
ALPHABET INC4.48%10.44%
META PLATFORMS INC3.03%19.93%
NETFLIX INC0.79%4.84%
T-MOBILE US INC0.45%4.16%
COMCAST CORP0.19%4.71%
WARNER BROS DISCOVERY INC0.14%4.67%
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC0.11%4.64%
TAKE-TWO INTERACTV SOFTWR INC0.09%5.26%
ECHOSTAR CORP0.04%1.67%
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS INC0.04%1.44%
FOX CORPORATION0.03%1.26%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ONEQOnly in XLC
NVIDIA CORP 11.24%Walt Disney Co/The 4.49%
APPLE INC 10.04%Verizon Communications Inc 4.15%
MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%AT&T Inc 4.10%
AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%Live Nation Entertainment Inc 3.50%
BROADCOM INC 4.64%Omnicom Group Inc 2.51%
TESLA INC 3.58%TKO Group Holdings Inc 1.53%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 2.38%
WALMART INC 2.02%

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.

ONEQ and XLC on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
XLC
State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityState Street
What it isNasdaq CompositeCommunication services
Total return, 1 year+20.6%−2.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.1 pts−19.5 pts
Expense ratio0.21%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50087.4%100.0%
Holdings102223

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

XLC in plain words

XLC is an index equity fund tracking the Communication services. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −2.0% 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 23 positions, with the top ten at 76.2%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Jan 30, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ONEQ or XLC?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ONEQ returned +20.6% and XLC returned −2.0%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ONEQ or XLC?
ONEQ charges 0.21% a year and XLC charges 0.08%, so XLC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ONEQ and XLC overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of ONEQ and 100% of XLC by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 14% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources