AGG vs XLF Overlap AnalysisOverlap
Comparing iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF and Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund
Visual Overlap
Price Performance
Historical price comparison over 3M
📈Performance Comparison
⚠️Risk Metrics
Interpretation:
- 📊 Lower volatility = smoother ride
- ⚡ Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
- ⚠️ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
- 📈 Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500
⚔️Head-to-Head Comparison
🏆 AGG wins this comparison
Key Factors
▶Additional Metrics (5)
Bottom line: AGG wins with better expense ratio and number of holdings. Consider AGG for your portfolio, but XLF is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.
Detailed Overlap Analysis
0 shared holdings representing 0.0% portfolio overlap
Top Shared Holdings
| # | Stock | AGG Weight | XLF Weight | Overlap |
|---|
Top Holdings Only in AGG
Unique to AGG
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| UST-10Y | US Treasury 10Y | 3.85% |
| UST-5Y | US Treasury 5Y | 3.25% |
| UST-2Y | US Treasury 2Y | 2.85% |
| GNMA-30Y | GNMA 30Y MBS | 2.45% |
| FNMA-30Y | FNMA 30Y MBS | 2.25% |
Top Holdings Only in XLF
Unique to XLF
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| BRK-B | BRK-B | 11.80% |
| JPM | JPM | 10.82% |
| V | V | 7.26% |
| MA | MA | 5.81% |
| BAC | BAC | 4.78% |
Price Correlation
How We Calculate Overlap
We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:
Overlap = Σ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holdingNormalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).
Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.
📊 This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.