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

VO vs XLC: how they differ

VO and XLC hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and VO returned more over the year.

Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund and State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions VO and XLC both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingVOXLC
Warner Bros Discovery Inc0.62%4.67%
Electronic Arts Inc0.50%4.64%
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc0.43%5.26%
Live Nation Entertainment Inc0.29%3.50%
Fox Corp0.09%1.26%
TKO Group Holdings Inc0.06%1.53%
Charter Communications Inc0.06%1.44%
Fox Corp0.06%0.79%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in VOOnly in XLC
Vertiv Holdings Co 1.23%Meta Platforms Inc 19.93%
Western Digital Corp 1.07%Alphabet Inc 13.10%
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.05%Alphabet Inc 10.44%
Quanta Services Inc 1.05%Netflix Inc 4.84%
Howmet Aerospace Inc 1.04%Comcast Corp 4.71%
Cummins Inc 0.95%Walt Disney Co/The 4.49%
Datadog Inc 0.84%T-Mobile US Inc 4.16%
Bloom Energy Corp 0.79%Verizon Communications Inc 4.15%

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.

VO and XLC on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
VO
Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund
XLC
State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanguardState Street
What it isMid-CapCommunication services
Total return, 1 year+12.0%−2.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−5.5 pts−19.5 pts
Expense ratio0.03%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50091.4%100.0%
Holdings28223

VO in plain words

VO is an index equity fund tracking the Mid-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 9.6%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

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, VO or XLC?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, VO returned +12.0% and XLC returned −2.0%, so VO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, VO or XLC?
VO charges 0.03% a year and XLC charges 0.08%, so VO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do VO and XLC overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of VO and 100% of XLC 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources