XLF vs. FCFAX

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) and FCFAX (Frost Credit Fund) are both funds - XLF is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Financial Select Sector Index, while FCFAX is a Short-Term Bond fund managed by Frost Funds. Over the past 10 years, XLF returned 13.33%/yr vs 5.17%/yr for FCFAX. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XLF charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.96%/yr for FCFAX.

Performance

XLF vs. FCFAX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLF achieves a -2.11% return, which is significantly lower than FCFAX's 1.58% return. Over the past 10 years, XLF has outperformed FCFAX with an annualized return of 13.33%, while FCFAX has yielded a comparatively lower 5.17% annualized return.

XLF

• 1D: 1.37%
• 1M: 4.61%
• YTD: -2.11%
• 6M: -2.09%
• 1Y: 6.20%
• 3Y*: 18.86%
• 5Y*: 9.15%
• 10Y*: 13.33%

FCFAX

• 1D: 0.33%
• 1M: 0.72%
• YTD: 1.58%
• 6M: 1.88%
• 1Y: 4.56%
• 3Y*: 7.23%
• 5Y*: 3.79%
• 10Y*: 5.17%

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

XLF vs. FCFAX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	-2.11%	14.90%	30.56%	12.03%	-10.59%	34.80%	-1.74%	31.88%	-13.06%	22.00%
FCFAX Frost Credit Fund	1.58%	5.21%	8.01%	11.23%	-7.83%	5.07%	6.22%	6.95%	0.89%	7.95%

Correlation

The correlation between XLF and FCFAX is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.22
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 2013	0.10

The correlation between XLF and FCFAX shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (10 years) to 0.27 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

XLF vs. FCFAX — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLF

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

FCFAX

FCFAX Risk / Return Rank: 73
FCFAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
FCFAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
FCFAX Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FCFAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FCFAX Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. FCFAX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) and Frost Credit Fund (FCFAX). 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.

	XLF	FCFAX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	2.13	-1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.67	3.26	-2.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.43	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.42	2.65	-2.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.08	9.89	-8.81

XLF vs. FCFAX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLF Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the FCFAX Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLF and FCFAX, 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

XLF vs. FCFAX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLF drawdown since its inception was -82.69%, which is greater than FCFAX's maximum drawdown of -16.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLF and FCFAX.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLF	FCFAX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-82.69%	-16.33%	-66.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.79%	-1.82%	-12.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.54%	-2.82%	-12.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.81%	-10.49%	-15.32%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.86%	-16.33%	-26.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.94%	0.00%	-4.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.01%	-1.53%	-18.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.76%	0.49%	+5.27%

Volatility

XLF vs. FCFAX - Volatility Comparison

State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) has a higher volatility of 4.23% compared to Frost Credit Fund (FCFAX) at 0.77%. This indicates that XLF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCFAX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XLF	FCFAX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.23%	0.77%	+3.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.26%	1.76%	+9.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.69%	2.27%	+12.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.66%	2.77%	+15.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.17%	3.24%	+18.93%

XLF vs. FCFAX - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLF has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than FCFAX's 0.96% expense ratio.

Dividends

XLF vs. FCFAX - Dividend Comparison

XLF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.49%, less than FCFAX's 6.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCFAX Frost Credit Fund	6.15%	6.10%	5.76%	5.93%	5.00%	3.65%	3.69%	4.62%	5.05%	5.85%	4.84%	4.95%
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	1.49%	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 FCFAX in my portfolio?

XLF and FCFAX have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XLF or FCFAX?

XLF has higher volatility (4.23%) compared to FCFAX (0.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XLF dropped -82.69% vs FCFAX's -16.33%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FCFAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 0.42), 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.