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 XLV: how they differ

ONEQ and XLV hold 2% of their weight in the same names.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ONEQ and XLV hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ONEQ and XLV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingONEQXLV
AMGEN INC0.40%3.41%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC0.36%2.74%
INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC0.33%2.46%
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC0.25%2.20%
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC0.14%1.09%
IDEXX LABORATORIES INC0.10%0.72%
DEXCOM INC0.06%0.45%
BIOGEN INC0.06%0.56%
GE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES INC0.06%0.51%
MODERNA INC0.04%0.43%
INCYTE CORP0.04%0.33%
VIATRIS INC0.04%0.32%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ONEQOnly in XLV
NVIDIA CORP 11.24%Eli Lilly & Co 16.56%
APPLE INC 10.04%Johnson & Johnson 10.67%
MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%AbbVie Inc 7.76%
AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%UnitedHealth Group Inc 6.59%
ALPHABET INC 4.85%Merck & Co Inc 5.54%
BROADCOM INC 4.64%Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc 3.25%
ALPHABET INC 4.48%Abbott Laboratories 2.76%
TESLA INC 3.58%Pfizer Inc 2.40%

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 XLV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
XLV
State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityState Street
What it isNasdaq CompositeHealth care
Total return, 1 year+20.6%+20.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.1 pts+2.9 pts
Expense ratio0.21%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50087.4%100.0%
Holdings102259

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%.

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, ONEQ or XLV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ONEQ returned +20.6% and XLV returned +20.4%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ONEQ or XLV?
ONEQ charges 0.21% a year and XLV charges 0.08%, so XLV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ONEQ and XLV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of ONEQ and 100% of XLV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 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, ONEQ against XLV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ONEQ-XLV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources