The iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) and the Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) are both among the Top 100 ETFs. IWB is a iShares Large Blend fund and XLC is a SPDR State Street Global Advisors Communications fund. So, what’s the difference between IWB and XLC? And which fund is better?
The expense ratio of IWB is 0.03 percentage points higher than XLC’s (0.15% vs. 0.12%). IWB also has a higher exposure to the technology sector and a higher standard deviation. Overall, IWB has provided lower returns than XLC over the past ten years.
In this article, we’ll compare IWB vs. XLC. We’ll look at fund composition and annual returns, as well as at their performance and portfolio growth. Moreover, I’ll also discuss IWB’s and XLC’s holdings, risk metrics, and industry exposure and examine how these affect their overall returns.
FYI: Another great way to get exposure to the real estate sector is by investing in real estate debt. Groundfloor offers fantastic short-term, high-yield bonds that can add diversification to your portfolio!
Summary
| IWB | XLC | |
| Name | iShares Russell 1000 ETF | Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund |
| Category | Large Blend | Communications |
| Issuer | iShares | SPDR State Street Global Advisors |
| AUM | 30.54B | 14.09B |
| Avg. Return | 14.64% | 29.04% |
| Div. Yield | 1.14% | 0.62% |
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.12% |
The iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is a Large Blend fund that is issued by iShares. It currently has 30.54B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 14.64% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 1.14% with an expense ratio of 0.15%.
The Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) is a Communications fund that is issued by SPDR State Street Global Advisors. It currently has 14.09B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 29.04% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 0.62% with an expense ratio of 0.12%.
IWB’s dividend yield is 0.52% higher than that of XLC (1.14% vs. 0.62%). Also, IWB yielded on average 14.40% less per year over the past decade (14.64% vs. 29.04%). The expense ratio of IWB is 0.03 percentage points higher than XLC’s (0.15% vs. 0.12%).
FYI: The best way I've found to invest is through M1 Finance. It's free and you even get an instant line of credit and 100$! Have a look here (link to M1 Finance).
Fund Composition
Industry Exposure
| IWB | XLC | |
| Technology | 25.33% | 0.0% |
| Industrials | 8.88% | 0.0% |
| Energy | 2.44% | 0.0% |
| Communication Services | 10.83% | 100.0% |
| Utilities | 2.36% | 0.0% |
| Healthcare | 13.35% | 0.0% |
| Consumer Defensive | 5.97% | 0.0% |
| Real Estate | 3.34% | 0.0% |
| Financial Services | 13.64% | 0.0% |
| Consumer Cyclical | 11.85% | 0.0% |
| Basic Materials | 2.02% | 0.0% |
The iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) has the most exposure to the Technology sector at 25.33%. This is followed by Financial Services and Healthcare at 13.64% and 13.35% respectively. Utilities (2.36%), Energy (2.44%), and Real Estate (3.34%) only make up 8.14% of the fund’s total assets.
IWB’s mid-section with moderate exposure is comprised of Consumer Defensive, Industrials, Communication Services, Consumer Cyclical, and Healthcare stocks at 5.97%, 8.88%, 10.83%, 11.85%, and 13.35%.
The Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) has the most exposure to the Communication Services sector at 100.0%. This is followed by Technology and Industrials at 0.0% and 0.0% respectively. Consumer Cyclical (0.0%), Financial Services (0.0%), and Real Estate (0.0%) only make up 0.00% of the fund’s total assets.
XLC’s mid-section with moderate exposure is comprised of Consumer Defensive, Healthcare, Utilities, Energy, and Industrials stocks at 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0%, and 0.0%.
IWB is 25.33% more exposed to the Technology sector than XLC (25.33% vs 0.0%). IWB’s exposure to Financial Services and Healthcare stocks is 13.64% higher and 13.35% higher respectively (13.64% vs. 0.0% and 13.35% vs. 0.0%). In total, Utilities, Energy, and Real Estate also make up 8.14% more of the fund’s holdings compared to XLC (8.14% vs. 0.00%).
Holdings
| IWB Holdings | Weight |
| Apple Inc | 5.45% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.11% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 3.43% |
| Facebook Inc Class A | 2.03% |
| Alphabet Inc Class A | 1.93% |
| Alphabet Inc Class C | 1.82% |
| Tesla Inc | 1.27% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B | 1.24% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 1.11% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.09% |
IWB’s Top Holdings are Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp, Amazon.com Inc, Facebook Inc Class A, and Alphabet Inc Class A at 5.45%, 5.11%, 3.43%, 2.03%, and 1.93%.
Alphabet Inc Class C (1.82%), Tesla Inc (1.27%), and Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B (1.24%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. NVIDIA Corp and JPMorgan Chase & Co are also represented in the IWB’s holdings at 1.11% and 1.09%.
| XLC Holdings | Weight |
| Facebook Inc A | 23.75% |
| Alphabet Inc A | 11.49% |
| Alphabet Inc Class C | 11.16% |
| Netflix Inc | 4.78% |
| Charter Communications Inc A | 4.65% |
| Comcast Corp Class A | 4.44% |
| T-Mobile US Inc | 4.41% |
| The Walt Disney Co | 4.39% |
| AT&T Inc | 4.35% |
| Verizon Communications Inc | 4.33% |
XLC’s Top Holdings are Facebook Inc A, Alphabet Inc A, Alphabet Inc Class C, Netflix Inc, and Charter Communications Inc A at 23.75%, 11.49%, 11.16%, 4.78%, and 4.65%.
Comcast Corp Class A (4.44%), T-Mobile US Inc (4.41%), and The Walt Disney Co (4.39%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc are also represented in the XLC’s holdings at 4.35% and 4.33%.
Risk Analysis
| IWB | XLC | |
| Mean Return | 1.27 | 0 |
| R-squared | 99.73 | 0 |
| Std. Deviation | 13.87 | 0 |
| Alpha | -0.38 | 0 |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0 |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.05 | 0 |
| Treynor Ratio | 14.31 | 0 |
The iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) has a Standard Deviation of 13.87 with a Treynor Ratio of 14.31 and a R-squared of 99.73. Its Mean Return is 1.27 while IWB’s Sharpe Ratio is 1.05. Furthermore, the fund has a Beta of 1.02 and a Alpha of -0.38.
The Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) has a Beta of 0 with a Alpha of 0 and a Mean Return of 0. Its Treynor Ratio is 0 while XLC’s Standard Deviation is 0. Furthermore, the fund has a Sharpe Ratio of 0 and a R-squared of 0.
IWB’s Mean Return is 1.27 points higher than that of XLC and its R-squared is 99.73 points higher. With a Standard Deviation of 13.87, IWB is slightly more volatile than XLC. The Alpha and Beta of IWB are 0.38 points lower and 1.02 points higher than XLC’s Alpha and Beta.
NOTE: The easiest way to add diversification to your portfolio is to invest in real estate through Fundrise. You can become private real estate investor without the burden of property management! Check it out here (link to Fundrise).
Performance
Annual Returns
| Year | IWB | XLC |
| 2020 | 20.8% | 26.85% |
| 2019 | 31.26% | 31.22% |
| 2018 | -4.91% | 0.0% |
| 2017 | 21.53% | 0.0% |
| 2016 | 11.91% | 0.0% |
| 2015 | 0.82% | 0.0% |
| 2014 | 13.08% | 0.0% |
| 2013 | 32.93% | 0.0% |
| 2012 | 16.27% | 0.0% |
| 2011 | 1.36% | 0.0% |
| 2010 | 15.94% | 0.0% |
IWB had its best year in 2013 with an annual return of 32.93%. IWB’s worst year over the past decade yielded -4.91% and occurred in 2018. In most years the iShares Russell 1000 ETF provided moderate returns such as in 2014, 2010, and 2012 where annual returns amounted to 13.08%, 15.94%, and 16.27% respectively.
The year 2019 was the strongest year for XLC, returning 31.22% on an annual basis. The poorest year for XLC in the last ten years was 2018, with a yield of 0.0%. Most years the Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund has given investors modest returns, such as in 2014, 2013, and 2012, when gains were 0.0%, 0.0%, and 0.0% respectively.
Portfolio Growth
| Fund | Initial Balance | Final Balance | CAGR |
| IWB | $10,000 | $15,856 | 14.64% |
| XLC | $10,000 | $16,645 | 29.04% |
A $10,000 investment in IWB would have resulted in a final balance of $15,856. This is a profit of $5,856 over 2 years and amounts to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.64%.
With a $10,000 investment in XLC, the end total would have been $16,645. This equates to a $6,645 profit over 2 years and a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 29.04%.
IWB’s CAGR is 14.40 percentage points lower than that of XLC and as a result, would have yielded $789 less on a $10,000 investment. Thus, IWB performed worse than XLC by 14.40% annually.
Current recommendations:
Over the past years, I have discovered several tools and products that have helped me tremendously on my path to financial freedom:
P.S.: The links below are affiliate links, which means I receive a small commission at no extra cost to you when you sign up for one of the services. Thank you for your support!
1)Personal Capital is simply the best tool out there to track your net worth and plan for financial freedom. Just their retirement planner alone has become an invaluable tool to keep myself on track financially. Try it out, it's free!
2) Take a look at M1 Finance, my favorite broker. I love how easy it is to invest and maintain my portfolio with them. I can set up automatic transfers, rebalance my portfolio with one click and even borrow up to 35% of my assets at super low interest rates!
3) Fundrise is by far the best way I've found to invest in Real Estate. You can diversify your portfolio by investing in their eREITs or even allocate capital to individual properties (without the hassle of managing tenants!).
4) Groundfloor is another great way to get exposure to the real estate sector by investing in short-term, high-yield real estate debt. Current returns are >10% and you can get started with just $10.
5) If you are interested in startup investing, check out Mainvest. I've started allocating a small amount of assets to invest in and support small businesses. Return targets are between 10-25% and you can start with just $100!
To see all of my most up-to-date recommendations, check out the Recommended Tools section.
I believe that money is just a means to an end: to be free to spend your time as you wish, to maximize your positive impact on the world.
