WBIF vs XLF
WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Which is better, WBIF or XLF?
Each has led over a different period.
XLF has a lower expense ratio. WBIF led over 1Y, XLF over 3Y, 5Y and the full window.
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 | WBIF | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.65% | 0.08%Best |
| AUM | $23M | $51.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.40% |
| Holdings | 152 | 160 |
| YTD Return | +14.87%Best | +0.47% |
| 1Y Return | +15.37%Best | +4.02% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.35% | +19.43%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.01% | +8.82%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.1%Best | 19.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.3%Best | -43.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,172 | $15,260Best |
| Fund Family | WBI Investments | SPDR State Street Global Advisors |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Aug 25, 2014 | Dec 16, 1998 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 27, 2014 to Oct 14, 2026 (12.1 years).
WBIF 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 12.1 years both funds cover.
WBIF vs XLF Performance
WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is an ETF from WBI Investments and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year WBIF returned +15.37% while XLF returned +4.02%. Year to date, WBIF is up 14.87% versus a gain of 0.47% for XLF.
Over three years, WBIF compounded at +10.35% per year against +19.43% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +4.01% and +8.82% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, XLF has the edge at +8.13% annualized vs +3.90%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XLF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.8% compared with 12.1% for WBIF. 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 -20.3% for WBIF and -43.3% 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 0.69. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
WBIF charges 1.65% per year while XLF charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $165 vs $8 annually, a gap of $157 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, WBIF currently yields 0.00% against 1.40% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
At least 17.3% of XLF's money is in holdings WBIF also owns.
Stated as a floor: for WBIF, our book for it covers 83.6% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
XLF and WBIF share little of their money.
8 positions in common, counted across the 62 positions we hold weights for in WBIF and 77 in XLF, against full books of 152 and 160.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in WBIF | Weight in XLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VVisa Inc-class A Shares | 1.46% | 7.62% | 6.16% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.44% | 5.69% | 4.25% |
| COFCapital One Financial Corp. | 2.12% | 1.61% | 0.51% |
| IBKRInteractive Brokers Group Inc | 2.18% | 0.50% | 1.68% |
| MMCMarsh & Mclennan Cos Inc | 1.04% | 1.06% | 0.02% |
| GLGlobe Life Inc. | 1.53% | 0.16% | 1.37% |
| MSCIM S C I Inc. | 1.06% | 0.50% | 0.56% |
| AIZAssurant, Inc. | 0.66% | 0.17% | 0.49% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of WBIF and XLF you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, WBIF or XLF?
WBIF has an expense ratio of 1.65% while XLF charges 0.08%. XLF is the cheaper option, by $157 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, WBIF or XLF?
Over the past year WBIF returned +15.37% vs +4.02% for XLF, so WBIF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), WBIF annualized +3.90% vs +8.13% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, WBIF or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 19.8% annualized versus 12.1% for WBIF. Worst drawdown: WBIF -20.3% vs XLF -43.3%.
Should I hold both WBIF and XLF?
WBIF and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, 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 WBIF and XLF?
At least 17.3% of XLF's money is in holdings WBIF also owns. Our book for WBIF is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 8 positions in common, counted across the 62 positions we hold weights for in WBIF and 77 in XLF.
Which pays a higher dividend, WBIF or XLF?
WBIF yields 0.00% while XLF yields 1.40%, so XLF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XLF better than WBIF?
XLF has a lower expense ratio. WBIF led over 1Y, XLF over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.