IWB vs XLK: Complete Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund โ€” overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis

Holdings Overlap
31.58%
Low Overlap
Shared Holdings
53 of 70
Complete portfolio analysis
Calculation Method
Min Weight
Weighted intersection

Visual Overlap

IWB
XLK
31.6%
IWB Only
Overlap
XLK Only

Price Performance

Historical price comparison over 3M

IWB Return
+8.28%
XLK Return
+12.16%
Winner
XLK
+3.88%
Max Drawdown
IWB: -5.2%
XLK: -10.5%
IWB Volatility (annualized)11.54%
XLK Volatility (annualized)19.66%

๐Ÿ“ˆ Comparison

Metric
IWB
XLK
1 Year Return
+25.5%
+35.2%โœ“
3 Year Return
+9.8%
+15.8%โœ“
5 Year Return
+15.2%
+25.5%โœ“
Volatility
18.80%โœ“
24.20%
Expense Ratio
0.20%
0.10%โœ“
โš ๏ธ Past performance does not guarantee future results. Data may be delayed.

โš ๏ธRisk Metrics

Metric
IWB
XLK
Volatility
18.80%โœ“
24.20%
Sharpe Ratio
0.78
1.05โœ“
Sortino Ratio
1.05
1.42โœ“
Max Drawdown
-34.20%โœ“
-38.50%
Beta
1.01
1.22

Interpretation:

  • ๐Ÿ“Š Lower volatility = smoother ride
  • โšก Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
  • โš ๏ธ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
  • ๐Ÿ“ˆ Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500

โš”๏ธ Comparison

7 - 13

๐Ÿ† XLK wins this comparison

Key Factors

๐Ÿ’ฐ Expense Ratio
IWB:0.20%โœ“
vs
XLK:0.10%โœ“
๐ŸŽฏ Number of Holdings
IWB:1,003 holdingsโœ“
vs
XLK:65 holdingsโœ“
๐Ÿ“ˆ 5-Year Return
IWB:+15.2%โœ“
vs
XLK:+25.5%โœ“
โ–ถAdditional Metrics (5)
โš–๏ธ Concentration Risk
IWB: 36.5% in top 10โœ“
XLK: 62.3% in top 10
๐Ÿ“Š Assets Under Management
IWB: $30B
XLK: $55B โœ“โœ“
โšก Sharpe Ratio
IWB: 0.78
XLK: 1.05โœ“
๐Ÿ“‰ Volatility
IWB: 18.8%โœ“
XLK: 24.2%
๐Ÿ” Uniqueness vs SPY
IWB: 19.7% unique
XLK: 65.5% uniqueโœ“

Bottom line: XLK wins with better expense ratio and 5-year return. Consider XLK for your portfolio, but IWB is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.

Detailed Overlap Analysis

53 shared holdings representing 31.6% portfolio overlap

Top Shared Holdings

#StockIWB WeightXLK WeightOverlap
1
NVDA
NVDA
6.89%14.84%6.89%
2
AAPL
AAPL
6.43%13.10%6.43%
3
MSFT
MSFT
5.78%11.75%5.78%
4
AVGO
AVGO
2.94%5.36%2.94%
5
ACN
ACN
0.27%1.42%0.27%
6
APH
APH
0.27%1.43%0.27%
7
APP
APP
0.26%1.66%0.26%
8
KLAC
KLAC
0.26%1.42%0.26%
9
TXN
TXN
0.26%1.36%0.26%
10
ADBE
ADBE
0.23%1.25%0.23%

Overlap by Sector

Technology
10 stocks ยท 23.20% overlap
Other
43 stocks ยท 3.33% overlap

Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution

53
Shared Stocks
31.6%
Total Overlap
2
Sectors Represented

Top Holdings Only in IWB

Unique to IWB

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
AMZNAMZN3.45%
GOOGLGOOGL2.89%
GOOGGOOG2.36%
METAMETA2.31%
TSLATSLA1.96%

Top Holdings Only in XLK

Unique to XLK

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
PLTRPLTR3.75%
AMDAMD2.96%
ORCLORCL2.81%
MUMU2.72%
CSCOCSCO2.60%

Price Correlation

How We Calculate Overlap

We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:

Overlap = ฮฃ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holding

Normalization: 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.

๐Ÿ“Š This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.

Compare More ETFs