FFLV vs XLF
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Which is better, FFLV or XLF?
FFLV has been ahead.
XLF has a lower expense ratio. FFLV led over 1Y and the full window. FFLV is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.3%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FFLV | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38% | 0.08%Best |
| AUM | $18M | $51.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.36% | 1.40% |
| Holdings | 230 | 160 |
| YTD Return | +14.51%Best | +0.47% |
| 1Y Return | +21.86%Best | +4.02% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +19.43% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.82% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.4%Best | 14.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -16.7% | -15.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.6 years | $14,372Best | $14,114 |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.3%Best | 57.3% |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Feb 9, 2024 | Dec 16, 1998 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 26, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.6 years).
FFLV vs XLF growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.6 years both funds cover.
FFLV vs XLF Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF (FFLV) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year FFLV returned +21.86% while XLF returned +4.02%. Year to date, FFLV is up 14.51% versus a gain of 0.47% for XLF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XLF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.2% compared with 12.4% for FFLV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -16.7% for FFLV and -15.5% for XLF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFLV charges 0.38% per year while XLF charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $8 annually, a gap of $30 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFLV currently yields 1.36% against 1.40% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
19.2% of FFLV's money is in holdings XLF also owns. 28.5% of XLF's money is in holdings FFLV also owns.
XLF and FFLV share little of their money.
15 positions in common, counted across the 115 positions we hold weights for in FFLV and 77 in XLF, against full books of 230 and 160.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 61 positions for XLF that do not appear in our book for FFLV (71.0% of the fund), and 87 for FFLV that do not appear in XLF (72.0%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FFLV | Weight in XLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.73% | 7.62% | 6.89% |
| BACBank Of America Corp | 2.28% | 5.07% | 2.79% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 2.59% | 3.42% | 0.83% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 1.47% | 2.17% | 0.70% |
| TRVThe Travelers Cos, Inc. | 2.22% | 0.99% | 1.23% |
| COFCapital One Financial Corp. | 1.20% | 1.61% | 0.41% |
| USBUS Bancorp | 1.52% | 1.21% | 0.31% |
| CBChubb Ltd Common Stock Usd 24.15 | 0.90% | 1.51% | 0.61% |
| HIGHartford Financial Services Group Inc. | 1.68% | 0.46% | 1.22% |
| APOAthene (Ath) / Apollo Global Management (Apo) | 0.93% | 0.74% | 0.19% |
28.5% of XLF is already inside FFLV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FFLV or XLF?
FFLV has an expense ratio of 0.38% while XLF charges 0.08%. XLF is the cheaper option, by $30 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFLV or XLF?
Over the past year FFLV returned +21.86% vs +4.02% for XLF, so FFLV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFLV or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 14.2% annualized versus 12.4% for FFLV. Worst drawdown: FFLV -16.7% vs XLF -15.5%.
Should I hold both FFLV and XLF?
FFLV and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FFLV and XLF?
28.5% of XLF's money is in holdings FFLV also owns. 28.5% of XLF's is in holdings FFLV also owns. They hold 15 positions in common, counted across the 115 positions we hold weights for in FFLV and 77 in XLF.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFLV or XLF?
FFLV yields 1.36% while XLF yields 1.40%, so XLF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XLF better than FFLV?
XLF has a lower expense ratio. FFLV led over 1Y and the full window. FFLV is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.