KBWB vs XLF: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Invesco KBW Bank ETF (KBWB) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) — both Financial funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
KBWB and XLF compete directly — both are Financial funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — KBWB scores higher: 71.8 (Grade B) versus 64.8 for XLF. That doesn't make XLF a bad fund; it means KBWB currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| KBWB | XLF | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Financial | Financial |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $6.5B | $51.4B |
| Dividend yield | 2.00% | 1.04% |
| 1-year return | +32.22% | +7.69% |
| 3-year return | +128.76% | +67.12% |
| Volatility | 20.39% | 14.63% |
| Max drawdown | -25.43% | -15.54% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.34 | 0.18 |
| ETFValuer score | 71.8 | 64.8 |
| Grade | B | C |
| Overall rank | #89 | #173 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
XLF is the cheaper fund, charging 0.08% a year versus 0.35% for KBWB — a gap of 0.27 percentage points (about $27.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What KBWB's Fees Cost You
KBWB charges an expense ratio of 0.35% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, KBWB returned +128.76% versus +67.12% for XLF — a gap of about 61.6 percentage points. On risk, XLF has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-15.54% vs. -25.43%). KBWB currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.34 vs. 0.18), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), KBWB and XLF show a strong correlation of 0.890 — clearly related, with room to diverge. There is some genuine differentiation here, but not enough to call these complementary holdings. Pairing them mostly concentrates risk rather than spreading it.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.890 | Strong — clearly related, with room to diverge |
| R-squared | 79.3% | 79.3% of KBWB's daily moves are explained by XLF's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 11.78% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | KBWB +32.85% · XLF +18.66% | KBWB ahead by 14.18 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, KBWB finished as much as +45.1 points ahead of XLF at the best extreme and -4.9 points at the worst — a 50.0-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
KBWB and XLF hold 5 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 37.3% of KBWB and 25.7% of XLF. That's meaningful duplication. The funds aren't interchangeable, but a good share of your money would be riding on the same companies twice.
| Shared Holding | KBWB Weight | XLF Weight |
|---|---|---|
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. | 7.36% | 11.24% |
| Bank of America Corp. | 7.13% | 4.59% |
| Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) | 7.98% | 3.60% |
| Wells Fargo & Co. | 7.28% | 3.49% |
| Morgan Stanley | 7.53% | 2.81% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean KBWB if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 2.00% against 1.04%
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 1.34 beats 0.18
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 128.8% over 3 years against 67.1%
Lean XLF if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.08% vs 0.35%, about $27 a year less on a $10,000 position
- It has been the calmer ride (14.6% volatility vs 20.4%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-15.5% vs -25.4%)
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($51B in assets vs $7B) and the tighter spread (0.124% vs 0.393%)
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is KBWB or XLF better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — KBWB scores higher: 71.8 (Grade B) versus 64.8 for XLF. That doesn't make XLF a bad fund; it means KBWB currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, KBWB or XLF?
XLF currently has the lower expense ratio (0.08% vs. 0.35%).
Can I hold both KBWB and XLF?
You can, though the benefit is limited. At a correlation of 0.89, KBWB and XLF fall together far more often than not, so owning both adds complexity and a second expense ratio without much real diversification. Most investors are better served picking one.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.