Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
IWB vs XLK: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWB returned +13.1% to XLK's +27.1%; 35% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about IWB and XLK
Net assets: $49.1bn on Oct 28, 2026 for iShares Russell 1000 ETF, and $125.0bn on Oct 27, 2026 for State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF.
Pair scorecard
XLK costs 0.07 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 14.0 points; XLK is 2.5 times larger.
| Measure | IWB | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +13.1% | +27.1% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 5.4%, high on Oct 6, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Russell 1000 Index | Technology Select Sector Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.08% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 26, 2026 | $48.7bn | $122.9bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 35% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 35.3% | 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 returnsEach against its own benchmark: IWB against VONE, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026; XLK against SPY, Dec 31, 1998 to Oct 23, 2026.
XLK returned more: +950.3% to +788.0%. IWB swung less: 17.7% to 23.1%. IWB fell less at its worst: −54.8% to −79.1%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | IWB | XLK | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +788.0% | +950.3% | XLK | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +8.6% | +9.3% | XLK (slight) | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +473.1% | +676.6% | XLK | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 17.7% | 23.1% | IWB | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 12.5% | 16.1% | IWB | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −54.8% | −79.1% | IWB | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 100.1% | 138.8% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 100.1% | 113.0% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.15 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 1.00 | 0.73 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.46 | 0.42 | IWB (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.64 | 0.61 | IWB (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.130 | 0.094 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.16 | 0.12 | IWB | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | VONE | SPY | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | 0.0% a year | +1.6% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.09 | 0.67 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −0.5% to +0.5% | −3.0% to +6.1% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.03 | 0.22 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 1.0% | 12.6% | 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, IWB and XLK hold 35% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Oct 27, 2026.
half
35% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
IWB and XLK on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB and XLK do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- What each follows. IWB follows Russell 1000 Index and XLK follows Technology Select Sector Index.
- Holdings in common. 35% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Oct 27, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 IWB returned +13.1% and XLK +27.1% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 14.0 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.
IWB
IWB tracks the Russell 1000. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +13.1% with distributions reinvested, against +13.2% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1,025 positions, with the top ten at 35.3%.
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, IWB or XLK?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +13.1% and XLK +27.1%.
- Which is cheaper, IWB or XLK?
- XLK is cheaper, by 0.07 percentage points a year. That is about $7 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, IWB against XLK, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwb-vs-xlk
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). IWB against XLK. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwb-vs-xlk
[IWB against XLK (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwb-vs-xlk)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.