ACES vs. XLF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACES is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while XLF is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACES returned -12.89%/yr vs 10.00%/yr for XLF. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for XLF.

Performance

ACES vs. XLF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACES achieves a 9.28% return, which is significantly higher than XLF's -0.77% return.

ACES

• 1D: -4.61%
• 1M: -9.51%
• YTD: 9.28%
• 6M: 4.82%
• 1Y: 42.77%
• 3Y*: -5.11%
• 5Y*: -12.89%
• 10Y*: —

XLF

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 4.10%
• YTD: -0.77%
• 6M: -1.95%
• 1Y: 7.67%
• 3Y*: 19.94%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: 13.72%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACES vs. XLF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	9.28%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-19.44%	140.33%	51.70%	-9.81%
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	-0.77%	14.90%	30.56%	12.03%	-10.59%	34.80%	-1.74%	31.88%	-9.46%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and XLF is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018	0.46

The correlation between ACES and XLF shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.47 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ACES vs. XLF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	XLF
Technology	30.1%	1.8%
Utilities	23.8%	-
Industrials	21.6%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	-
Basic Materials	7.3%	-
Financial Services	4.4%	98.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	-
Energy	0.4%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. XLF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 39
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 39

XLF

XLF Risk / Return Rank: 15
XLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
XLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
XLF Omega Ratio Rank: 16
XLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
XLF Martin Ratio Rank: 15

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ACES vs. XLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ACES	XLF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.27	0.53	+0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	0.81	+0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.10	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	0.52	+1.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.66	1.33	+4.33

ACES vs. XLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 1.27, which is higher than the XLF Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and XLF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ACES vs. XLF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, roughly equal to the maximum XLF drawdown of -82.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and XLF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	XLF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-82.69%	+3.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.82%	-14.79%	-3.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	-15.54%	-43.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	-25.81%	-48.63%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-63.00%	-3.64%	-59.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.99%	-19.99%	-19.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.58%	5.79%	+1.79%

Volatility

ACES vs. XLF - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a higher volatility of 14.00% compared to State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) at 4.12%. This indicates that ACES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	XLF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.00%	4.12%	+9.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.21%	11.27%	+13.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.93%	14.62%	+19.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.52%	18.58%	+17.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.72%	22.11%	+13.61%

ACES vs. XLF - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XLF's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. XLF - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than XLF's 1.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.63%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	1.50%	1.31%	1.42%	1.71%	2.04%	1.63%	2.03%	1.87%	2.08%	1.48%	21.10%	1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and XLF in my portfolio?

ACES and XLF have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACES or XLF?

ACES has higher volatility (14.00%) compared to XLF (4.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs XLF's -82.69%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or XLF?

On 5-year performance, XLF leads with 10.00% vs -12.89% for ACES. On fees, XLF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, XLF has been the lower-risk option at 4.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or XLF?

Over the 5-year period, XLF has performed better with a 10.00% return vs -12.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or XLF?

XLF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACES or XLF?

XLF has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 0.63% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ACES and XLF?

ACES is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while XLF is Financials Equities. ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while XLF tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.08% for XLF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACES currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.27 vs 0.53), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.