PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IAT vs. XLF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IAT vs. XLF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IAT (iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF) and XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - IAT tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index while XLF tracks the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IAT returned 9.76%/yr vs 13.69%/yr for XLF. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IAT charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for XLF.

Performance

IAT vs. XLF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IAT achieves a 16.55% return, which is significantly higher than XLF's 4.86% return. Over the past 10 years, IAT has underperformed XLF with an annualized return of 9.76%, while XLF has yielded a comparatively higher 13.69% annualized return.

IAT

1D
0.05%
1M
1.29%
6M
10.79%
YTD
16.55%
1Y
33.38%
3Y*
22.18%
5Y*
5.94%
10Y*
9.76%
ALL TIME*
3.78%

XLF

1D
-0.11%
1M
2.37%
6M
7.47%
YTD
4.86%
1Y
12.50%
3Y*
19.11%
5Y*
11.20%
10Y*
13.69%
ALL TIME*
6.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IAT

iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF
$7.75M$9.87M$9.53M

XLF

State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
$1.84B$1.93B$1.92B

IAT vs. XLF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IAT
iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF		16.55%13.05%24.36%-8.53%-20.61%38.89%-7.60%31.38%-17.45%10.42%
XLF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF		4.86%14.90%30.56%12.03%-10.59%34.80%-1.74%31.88%-13.06%22.00%

Correlation

The correlation between IAT and XLF is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.73

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.78

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.83

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2006

0.89

The correlation between IAT and XLF shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.89 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IAT vs. XLF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IAT
XLF

Financial Services

100.0%
98.2%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

0.2%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

1.6%

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

IAT
100.0%
XLF
98.2%

Basic Materials

IAT

-

XLF

-

Communication Services

IAT

-

XLF

-

Consumer Cyclical

IAT

-

XLF

-

Consumer Defensive

IAT

-

XLF

-

Energy

IAT

-

XLF

-

Healthcare

IAT

-

XLF

-

Industrials

IAT

-

XLF
0.2%

Real Estate

IAT

-

XLF

-

Technology

IAT

-

XLF
1.6%

Utilities

IAT

-

XLF

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF

State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF

Often compared with IAT:
IAT vs. KREIAT vs. KCEIAT vs. MTBIAT vs. PKWIAT vs. JPMIAT vs. SPYIAT vs. SWPPX
Often compared with XLF:
XLF vs. SPYXLF vs. VFHXLF vs. KBWBXLF vs. XLVXLF vs. KREXLF vs. KBEXLF vs. JPM

Return for Risk

IAT vs. XLF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IAT
IAT Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
IAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAT Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
IAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAT Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank
XLF
XLF Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
XLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLF Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
XLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLF Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IAT vs. XLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) 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.

IATXLFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.40
0.71

+0.69

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.93
1.05

+0.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.13

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.75

0.71

+1.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.51

1.80

+2.71

IAT vs. XLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.40, which is higher than the XLF Sharpe Ratio of 0.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAT 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IAT vs. XLF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAT drawdown since its inception was -77.22%, smaller than the maximum XLF drawdown of -82.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAT and XLF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IATXLFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-77.22%

-82.69%

+5.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.49%

-14.79%

-2.70%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.29%

-15.54%

-13.75%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-55.55%

-25.81%

-29.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-55.55%

-42.86%

-12.69%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.53%

-1.15%

-1.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-26.77%

-19.92%

-6.85%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.77%

5.79%

+0.98%

Volatility

IAT vs. XLF - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) has a higher volatility of 5.49% compared to State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) at 4.07%. This indicates that IAT'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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IATXLFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.49%

4.07%

+1.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.01%

11.10%

+4.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.95%

14.77%

+7.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.76%

18.45%

+10.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.67%

22.08%

+8.59%

IAT vs. XLF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAT has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than XLF's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

IAT vs. XLF - Dividend Comparison

IAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.54%, more than XLF's 1.42% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IAT
iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF		2.54%2.94%2.95%3.56%3.12%1.88%2.87%2.49%2.48%1.55%1.52%1.78%
XLF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF		1.42%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

IAT and XLF have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IAT has higher volatility (5.49%) compared to XLF (4.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAT dropped -77.22% vs XLF's -82.69%.

On 10-year performance, XLF leads with 13.69% vs 9.76% for IAT. On fees, XLF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, XLF has been the lower-risk option at 4.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XLF has performed better with a 13.69% return vs 9.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XLF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for IAT.

IAT has the higher dividend yield at 2.54%, compared with 1.42% for XLF.

IAT tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index, while XLF tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for IAT and 0.08% for XLF.

IAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 vs 0.71), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IAT and XLF

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer