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

URTH vs XLC: how they differ

URTH and XLC hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and URTH returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI World ETF and State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, URTH and XLC hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions URTH and XLC both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingURTHXLC
ALPHABET INC.2.43%13.10%
ALPHABET INC.2.01%10.44%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.51%19.93%
NETFLIX, INC.0.40%4.84%
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.0.22%4.15%
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY0.20%4.49%
AT&T INC.0.19%4.10%
T-MOBILE US, INC.0.10%4.16%
COMCAST CORPORATION0.10%4.71%
WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC.0.07%4.67%
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.0.06%4.64%
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.0.04%5.26%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in URTHOnly in XLC
NVIDIA CORPORATION 5.64%TKO Group Holdings Inc 1.53%
APPLE INC. 5.04%News Corp 0.41%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3.50%Paramount Skydance Corp 0.38%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.86%
BROADCOM INC. 2.21%
TESLA, INC. 1.35%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.20%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 0.97%

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.

URTH and XLC on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
URTH
iShares MSCI World ETF
XLC
State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isMSCI WorldCommunication services
Total return, 1 year+17.4%−2.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts−19.5 pts
Expense ratio0.24%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50070.3%100.0%
Holdings132223

URTH in plain words

URTH is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI World. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.24% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 70% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1322 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.

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, URTH or XLC?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, URTH returned +17.4% and XLC returned −2.0%, so URTH returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, URTH or XLC?
URTH charges 0.24% a year and XLC charges 0.08%, so XLC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do URTH and XLC overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 70% of URTH and 100% of XLC by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources