Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

RSP vs XLK: how they differ

RSP and XLK hold 13% of their weight in the same names, and XLK returned more over the year.

Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF and State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, RSP and XLK hold 13% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions RSP and XLK both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingRSPXLK
Salesforce Inc0.28%1.31%
Dell Technologies Inc0.27%0.97%
Crowdstrike Holdings Inc0.25%1.41%
Palo Alto Networks Inc0.25%1.81%
Workday Inc0.26%0.25%
Palantir Technologies Inc0.25%2.52%
Arista Networks Inc0.24%1.29%
Microsoft Corp0.24%9.90%
ServiceNow Inc0.24%0.89%
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co0.23%0.48%
Roper Technologies Inc0.23%0.26%
Fortinet Inc0.22%0.65%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in RSPOnly in XLK
Moderna Inc 0.58%SSI US GOV MONEY MARKET CLASS 0.05%
Veeva Systems Inc 0.31%
Marathon Petroleum Corp 0.29%
Valero Energy Corp 0.29%
Charles River Laboratories International 0.28%
Phillips 66 0.28%
Global Payments Inc 0.28%
IQVIA Holdings Inc 0.27%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

RSP and XLK on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
RSP
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF
XLK
State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerInvescoState Street
What it isS&P 500 equal weightTechnology
Total return, 1 year+14.8%+39.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−2.7 pts+21.7 pts
Expense ratio0.20%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50099.1%100.0%
Holdings50674

RSP in plain words

RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 506 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

XLK in plain words

XLK is an index equity fund tracking the Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +39.2% 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 Sep 10, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 74 positions, with the top ten at 61.2%. It sat 5.2% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, RSP or XLK?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, RSP returned +14.8% and XLK returned +39.2%, so XLK returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, RSP or XLK?
RSP charges 0.20% a year and XLK charges 0.08%, so XLK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do RSP and XLK overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of RSP and 100% of XLK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 13% 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.

RSP against XLK, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, RSP against XLK, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/rsp-vs-xlk Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources