XLF vs. FAS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) and FAS (Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares) are both exchange-traded funds - XLF is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Financial Select Sector Index, while FAS is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XLF returned 12.38%/yr vs 18.36%/yr for FAS. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XLF charges 0.08%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for FAS.

Performance

XLF vs. FAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) and Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLF achieves a -6.64% return, which is significantly higher than FAS's -24.46% return. Over the past 10 years, XLF has underperformed FAS with an annualized return of 12.38%, while FAS has yielded a comparatively higher 18.36% annualized return.

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%

FAS

• 1D: -3.47%
• 1M: -5.15%
• YTD: -24.46%
• 6M: -18.86%
• 1Y: -12.36%
• 3Y*: 34.13%
• 5Y*: 3.01%
• 10Y*: 18.36%

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

XLF vs. FAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	-24.46%	21.48%	84.47%	14.92%	-43.19%	116.59%	-34.97%	113.04%	-33.84%	67.37%

Correlation

The correlation between XLF and FAS is 1.00 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	1.00
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 20, 2008	0.98

The correlation between XLF and FAS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

XLF vs. FAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XLF	FAS
Financial Services	98.0%	98.0%
Technology	1.8%	1.7%
Industrials	0.2%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

XLF vs. FAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

FAS

FAS Risk / Return Rank: 6
FAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
FAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
FAS Omega Ratio Rank: 6
FAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
FAS Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

XLF vs. FAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) and Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS). 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.

	XLF	FAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.08	-0.29	+0.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.20	-0.13	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	0.98	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.08	-0.30	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.20	-0.71	+0.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XLF vs. FAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLF Sharpe Ratio is 0.08, which is higher than the FAS Sharpe Ratio of -0.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLF and FAS, 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

	XLF	FAS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.08	-0.29	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.05	+0.36
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.56	0.30	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.19	+0.01

Drawdowns

XLF vs. FAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLF drawdown since its inception was -82.69%, smaller than the maximum FAS drawdown of -91.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLF and FAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLF	FAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-82.69%	-91.61%	+8.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.79%	-40.88%	+26.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.54%	-43.10%	+27.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.81%	-66.88%	+41.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.86%	-85.99%	+43.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.34%	-30.69%	+21.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.03%	-31.11%	+11.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.66%	17.51%	-11.85%

Volatility

XLF vs. FAS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) is 3.29%, while Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) has a volatility of 9.50%. This indicates that XLF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XLF	FAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.29%	9.50%	-6.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.94%	32.51%	-21.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.41%	42.76%	-28.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.63%	55.49%	-36.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.16%	61.29%	-39.13%

XLF vs. FAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLF has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than FAS's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

XLF vs. FAS - Dividend Comparison

XLF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, less than FAS's 11.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	11.04%	8.21%	0.76%	1.77%	0.91%	0.60%	0.47%	0.62%	1.43%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%
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 XLF and FAS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 1.00, XLF and FAS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, XLF or FAS?

FAS has higher volatility (9.50%) compared to XLF (3.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XLF dropped -82.69% vs FAS's -91.61%.

Which ETF is better, XLF or FAS?

On 10-year performance, FAS leads with 18.36% vs 12.38% for XLF. On fees, XLF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, XLF has been the lower-risk option at 3.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XLF or FAS?

Over the 10-year period, FAS has performed better with a 18.36% return vs 12.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XLF or FAS?

XLF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for FAS.

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

FAS has the higher dividend yield at 11.04%, compared with 1.56% for XLF.

What is the main difference between XLF and FAS?

XLF is categorized as Financials Equities, while FAS is Leveraged Equities. XLF tracks Financial Select Sector Index, while FAS tracks Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: State Street and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for XLF and 1.00% for FAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XLF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.08 vs -0.29), 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.