PFIG vs. XLF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PFIG (Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PFIG is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the RAFI Bonds US Investment Grade 1-10 Index, while XLF is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PFIG returned 2.44%/yr vs 12.38%/yr for XLF. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. PFIG charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for XLF.

Performance

PFIG vs. XLF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (PFIG) 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, PFIG achieves a 0.19% return, which is significantly higher than XLF's -6.64% return. Over the past 10 years, PFIG has underperformed XLF with an annualized return of 2.44%, while XLF has yielded a comparatively higher 12.38% annualized return.

PFIG

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.10%
• YTD: 0.19%
• 6M: 0.30%
• 1Y: 4.83%
• 3Y*: 5.21%
• 5Y*: 1.35%
• 10Y*: 2.44%

XLF

• 1D: -1.15%
• 1M: -1.38%
• YTD: -6.64%
• 6M: -4.18%
• 1Y: 1.13%
• 3Y*: 17.64%
• 5Y*: 7.61%
• 10Y*: 12.38%

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

PFIG vs. XLF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PFIG Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	0.19%	7.87%	3.13%	6.93%	-9.96%	-1.43%	7.72%	9.69%	-0.82%	4.00%
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	-6.64%	14.90%	30.56%	12.03%	-10.59%	34.80%	-1.74%	31.88%	-13.06%	22.00%

Correlation

The correlation between PFIG and XLF is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.18
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.13
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2011	-0.05

The correlation between PFIG and XLF shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (all time) to 0.21 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PFIG vs. XLF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PFIG	XLF
Financial Services	15.2%	98.0%
Industrials	11.1%	0.2%
Healthcare	10.9%	-
Technology	10.7%	1.8%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Energy	5.6%	-
Utilities	4.5%	-
Communication Services	4.4%	-
Real Estate	4.2%	-
Basic Materials	3.0%	-

Return for Risk

PFIG vs. XLF — Risk / Return Rank

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

PFIG

PFIG Risk / Return Rank: 48
PFIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
PFIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
PFIG Omega Ratio Rank: 44
PFIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
PFIG Martin Ratio Rank: 49

XLF

XLF Risk / Return Rank: 9
XLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
XLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
XLF Omega Ratio Rank: 9
XLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
XLF Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

PFIG vs. XLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (PFIG) 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.

	PFIG	XLF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.58	0.08	+1.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.38	0.20	+2.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.02	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.49	0.08	+2.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.20	0.20	+8.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PFIG vs. XLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PFIG Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is higher than the XLF Sharpe Ratio of 0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PFIG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PFIG	XLF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.58	0.08	+1.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	0.41	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47	0.56	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	0.20	+0.32

Drawdowns

PFIG vs. XLF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PFIG drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, smaller than the maximum XLF drawdown of -82.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFIG and XLF.

Drawdown Indicators

	PFIG	XLF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.58%	-82.69%	+67.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.94%	-14.79%	+12.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.52%	-15.54%	+12.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.58%	-25.81%	+10.23%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-15.58%	-42.86%	+27.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.98%	-9.34%	+8.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.46%	-20.03%	+17.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.59%	5.66%	-5.07%

Volatility

PFIG vs. XLF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (PFIG) is 0.92%, while State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) has a volatility of 3.29%. This indicates that PFIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PFIG	XLF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.92%	3.29%	-2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.19%	10.94%	-8.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.07%	14.41%	-11.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.92%	18.63%	-13.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.24%	22.16%	-16.92%

PFIG vs. XLF - Expense Ratio Comparison

PFIG has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is higher than XLF's 0.08% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

PFIG vs. XLF - Dividend Comparison

PFIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.40%, more than XLF's 1.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PFIG Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	4.40%	4.15%	4.12%	3.54%	2.58%	3.34%	2.81%	2.92%	2.88%	2.54%	2.58%	2.57%
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	1.56%	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 PFIG and XLF in my portfolio?

PFIG and XLF have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PFIG or XLF?

XLF has higher volatility (3.29%) compared to PFIG (0.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PFIG dropped -15.58% vs XLF's -82.69%.

Which ETF is better, PFIG or XLF?

On 10-year performance, XLF leads with 12.38% vs 2.44% for PFIG. On fees, XLF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, PFIG has been the lower-risk option at 0.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PFIG or XLF?

Over the 10-year period, XLF has performed better with a 12.38% return vs 2.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PFIG or XLF?

XLF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for PFIG.

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

PFIG has the higher dividend yield at 4.40%, compared with 1.56% for XLF.

What is the main difference between PFIG and XLF?

PFIG is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while XLF is Financials Equities. PFIG tracks RAFI Bonds US Investment Grade 1-10 Index, while XLF tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for PFIG and 0.08% for XLF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFIG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.58 vs 0.08), 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.