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 XLF: how they differ

ONEQ and XLF hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ONEQ and XLF hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ONEQ and XLF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingONEQXLF
CME GROUP INC0.21%1.06%
ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC0.16%1.05%
NASDAQ INC0.11%0.47%
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP0.10%0.67%
COINBASE GLOBAL INC0.09%0.43%
PAYPAL HOLDINGS INC0.09%0.50%
INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP INC0.08%0.51%
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES INC/OH0.07%0.47%
FISERV INC0.07%0.34%
NORTHERN TRUST CORP0.07%0.42%
CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORP0.05%0.38%
PRICE (T ROWE) GROUP INC0.05%0.32%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ONEQOnly in XLF
NVIDIA CORP 11.24%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 12.10%
APPLE INC 10.04%JPMorgan Chase & Co 11.57%
MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%Visa Inc 7.51%
AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%Mastercard Inc 5.47%
ALPHABET INC 4.85%Bank of America Corp 4.91%
BROADCOM INC 4.64%Goldman Sachs Group Inc/The 3.94%
ALPHABET INC 4.48%Wells Fargo & Co 3.34%
TESLA INC 3.58%Morgan Stanley 3.31%

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 XLF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
XLF
State Street(R) Financial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityState Street
What it isNasdaq CompositeFinancials
Total return, 1 year+20.6%+7.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.1 pts−9.9 pts
Expense ratio0.21%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50087.4%100.0%
Holdings102276

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%.

XLF in plain words

XLF is an index equity fund tracking the Financials. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 76 positions, with the top ten at 57.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ONEQ or XLF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ONEQ returned +20.6% and XLF returned +7.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ONEQ or XLF?
ONEQ charges 0.21% a year and XLF charges 0.08%, so XLF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ONEQ and XLF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of ONEQ and 100% of XLF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 XLF, 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 XLF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ONEQ-XLF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources