⚖️ XBI vs XLV Comparison · Free & No Signup

XBI vs XLV: Pure Biotech Against the Whole Healthcare Sector

These are not two versions of the same idea. XBI holds development-stage biotech at equal weight and pays no dividend. XLV holds insurers, device makers and large pharmaceutical companies alongside biotech, at a fifth of the cost.

💰 XLV is cheaper 🔬 Compare top 10 holdings → 💡 Plain-English verdict
🤝 BFF Take
XLV Is Mostly Not a Biotech Fund, and That Is the Whole Decision

XBI (SPDR S&P Biotech ETF) and XLV (Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund) get filed under the same sector heading and behave nothing alike. XLV holds about 63 companies weighted by market capitalisation, and most of that weight sits in large pharmaceutical manufacturers, health insurers, medical device makers and hospital operators. Those are profitable businesses with revenue and dividends, which is why XLV charges 0.09%, records a beta of 0.70 and yields about 1.4%. XBI holds roughly 150 biotech companies at close to equal weight, charges 0.35%, records a beta of 1.10 and yields 0.0%, because development-stage biotech spends cash on research rather than returning it. The practical consequence is that a biotech headline moves XBI and often barely touches XLV, since the companies in the headline may be a small fraction of XLV or absent from it. Equal weighting also cuts the other way: with about 150 positions, no single holding is much more than 0.67% of XBI, so one result rarely moves the fund far on its own even though the fund as a whole swings more.

📋 Quick Takeaways
🔬XBI equal-weights about 150 biotechs, so each position is roughly 0.67% of the fund and a single drug result moves it about that much
💊XLV holds 63 companies weighted by size, dominated by pharma, insurers and device makers rather than clinical-stage biotech
📊Beta 1.10 for XBI against 0.70 for XLV, and a 0.0% yield against 1.4%, describe the gap better than the shared sector label does

Both funds trade commission-free at every major brokerage. How the major brokerages compare →

Reviewed by a CFA® Charterholder · Data as of Aug 30, 2026 · Educational only, not financial advice
XBI
State Street SPDR S&P Biotech ETF
Expense Ratio
0.35%
1-Year Return
+87.2%
AUM
$9.6B
Holdings
150
XLV
State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
Expense Ratio
0.09% ✓
1-Year Return
+24.8%
AUM
$41.7B
Holdings
63

📋 XBI vs XLV: Key Facts Side by Side

Metric XBI XLV
Fund Name State Street SPDR S&P Biotech ETF State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
Issuer State Street State Street
Tracks Index S&P Biotechnology Select Industry S&P Health Care Select Sector
Expense Ratio 0.35% 0.09% ✓
Cost per $10K/yr $35.00 $9.00
AUM $9.6B $41.7B
Holdings 150 63
Inception 2006 1998
1-Year Return +87.23% +24.85%
3-Year Return +29.13% +11.00%
5-Year Return +5.67% +6.90%
Dividend Yield 0.39% 1.56%
Holdings Overlap See holdings overlap →
Avg Bid-Ask Spread 0.00% 0.00%

Expense ratio, AUM, and returns updated Aug 30, 2026 from ETF BFF database. Returns are annualised. Not investment advice.

📊 XBI vs XLV: Annualised Returns

Annualised returns (trailing, price-based). Past performance does not guarantee future results.

🎯 Which Fund Fits Which Investor?

Often fits investors who...
XBI
  • want broader diversification (150 holdings vs 63)
Often fits investors who...
XLV
  • want the lowest fees: saves ~$26/yr per $10K vs XBI

💰 What the Fee Difference Actually Costs

Adjust the numbers for your situation. This models each fund's expense ratio compounding against your balance over time.

Assumes a constant annual return reinvested, with each fund's expense ratio deducted yearly. Illustrative only; actual returns vary. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

⚙️ Want the Full Interactive Comparison?

Side-by-side holdings overlap, sector breakdown, and live performance tabs, all in one place.

Run Full XBI vs XLV Comparison → Free · No signup · Instant results
📧 Free Weekly Newsletter

Get smarter about ETFs: one concept a week, free forever

The ETF BFF newsletter breaks down one ETF concept per week: clear, jargon-free, and actually useful.

Reviewed by a CFA® charterholder · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime

✅ Almost there. Click the confirmation link in your inbox to finish.

❓ XBI vs XLV: Frequently Asked Questions

Not really. XLV tracks the S&P Health Care Select Sector index and holds about 63 companies across the whole sector, which means large pharmaceutical manufacturers, health insurers, medical device makers and hospital operators sit alongside biotechnology. Biotech is one slice of the fund rather than the whole of it. If the reason for buying is a biotech development specifically, XLV delivers a diluted version of that exposure mixed with businesses that had nothing to do with it.
Two reasons compound. XBI holds only biotechnology, and it weights those holdings close to equally rather than by company size, so companies worth a few hundred million carry roughly the same weight as companies worth many billions. Small biotechs move more, and a fund made mostly of them moves more. XLV is weighted by market capitalisation and is dominated by large profitable healthcare businesses. ETF BFF records XBI at a beta of 1.10 against XLV at 0.70.
XLV, by a wide margin in percentage terms. XLV charges 0.09% against XBI at 0.35%, a gap of 0.26 percentage points a year, or $26 annually on $10,000. The funds hold different things, so the fee gap is not really a like-for-like comparison. It reflects that a broad cap-weighted sector fund is cheaper to run than an equal-weighted industry fund that has to rebalance regularly.
ETF BFF records XBI at a 0.0% dividend yield. Development-stage biotechnology companies generally spend their cash on research rather than distributing it, so a fund built from them has almost no income to pass through. XLV records about 1.4%, which comes from the profitable pharmaceutical companies and insurers inside it. Anyone holding a healthcare position for income is describing XLV rather than XBI.
Less than most people expect. With roughly 150 holdings at approximately equal weight, each position is about 1 divided by 150, or 0.67% of the fund. A holding doubling therefore contributes about 0.67 percentage points, and a holding going to zero costs about the same. Equal weighting is a decision to stop depending on which particular company was right. The fund still moves more than XLV overall, because it is made of volatile companies, not because any one of them dominates.

New to ETF investing? See answers to the most common ETF questions →