Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
IVV vs XLK: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IVV returned +13.7% to XLK's +27.1%; 38% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about IVV and XLK
Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $885.1bn for iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and $125.0bn for State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF.
Pair scorecard
IVV costs 0.05 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 13.4 points; IVV is 7.1 times larger.
| Measure | IVV | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +13.7% | +27.1% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 5.4%, high on Oct 6, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | S&P 500 | Technology Select Sector Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $885.1bn | $125.0bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 38% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 38.1% | 64.6% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
May 26, 2000 to Oct 23, 2026 · 1,378 weekly returns · each against SPYXLK returned more: +950.3% to +785.1%. IVV swung less: 17.3% to 23.1%. IVV fell less at its worst: −54.7% to −79.1%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | IVV | XLK | SPY | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | |||||
| Total return | +785.1% | +950.3% | XLK | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. | |
| Annualized | +8.6% | +9.3% | XLK (slight) | Total return as a yearly rate. | |
| Price return | +453.9% | +676.6% | XLK | Price change alone, distributions left out. | |
| Risk | |||||
| Volatility | 17.3% | 23.1% | IVV | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. | |
| Downside deviation | 12.3% | 16.1% | IVV | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. | |
| Max drawdown | −54.7% | −79.1% | IVV | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. | |
| Upside capture | 99.3% | 136.2% | 100.0% | XLK | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. |
| Downside capture | 99.7% | 113.4% | 100.0% | IVV | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. |
| Beta | 0.99 | 1.14 | 1.00 | IVV lower | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 1.00 | 0.74 | 1.00 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | |||||
| Sharpe | 0.46 | 0.42 | IVV (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. | |
| Sortino | 0.65 | 0.61 | IVV (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. | |
| Treynor | 0.081 | 0.086 | 0.080 | XLK (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. |
| Calmar | 0.16 | 0.12 | IVV | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. | |
| Against the benchmark | |||||
| Benchmark | SPY | SPY | SPY | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | +0.1% a year | +0.7% a year | 0.0% | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | 0.33 | 0.31 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. | |
| Alpha range | −0.4% to +0.5% | −3.8% to +5.3% | Both include zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. | |
| Information ratio | 0.00 | 0.15 | XLK | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 1.2% | 12.1% | 0.0% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 1,378 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, IVV and XLK hold 38% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Oct 27, 2026.
half
38% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
IVV and XLK on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IVV and XLK do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- What each follows. IVV follows S&P 500 and XLK follows Technology Select Sector Index.
- Holdings in common. 38% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Oct 27, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 IVV returned +13.7% and XLK +27.1% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 13.4 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
IVV
IVV tracks the S&P 500. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +13.7% with distributions reinvested, against +13.6% for its benchmark, the S&P 500. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 505 positions, with the top ten at 38.1%.
XLK
XLK tracks an index of Technology. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +27.1% with distributions reinvested, against +13.6% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 76 positions, with the top ten at 64.6%. It sat 5.4% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IVV or XLK?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IVV returned +13.7% and XLK +27.1%.
- Which is cheaper, IVV or XLK?
- IVV is cheaper, by 0.05 percentage points a year. That is about $5 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, IVV against XLK, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ivv-vs-xlk
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). IVV against XLK. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ivv-vs-xlk
[IVV against XLK (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ivv-vs-xlk)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.