SWPPX vs XLF: 12% overlap
Schwab S&P 500 Index and Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund share 11.5% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published about 3 months apart — SWPPX as of 2026-04-30, the rest through 2026-07-23. Each fund is compared using its most recent file, so any trading in between shows up as a difference.
You would hold two tickers and get the diversification of 1.9. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
SWPPX and XLF hold 71 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in SWPPX | in XLF | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK-B | 1.4% | 11.4% | 10.0% |
| JPM | 1.4% | 11.9% | 10.5% |
| V | 0.9% | 7.4% | 6.5% |
| MA | 0.7% | 5.4% | 4.8% |
| BAC | 0.6% | 5.1% | 4.5% |
| GS | 0.4% | 4.0% | 3.6% |
| WFC | 0.4% | 3.3% | 2.9% |
| MS | 0.4% | 3.3% | 2.9% |
| C | 0.4% | 2.9% | 2.5% |
| AXP | 0.3% | 2.3% | 2.0% |
Where SWPPX and XLF differ
Sector weights as a share of each fund, ordered by the size of the gap rather than the size of the sector — two funds that overlap heavily still usually diverge somewhere.
| Sector | SWPPX | XLF | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials | 11.5% | 99.9% | −88.3pp |
| Information Technology | 34.2% | 0.0% | +34.2pp |
| Communication Services | 11.0% | 0.0% | +11.0pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 9.7% | 0.0% | +9.7pp |
| Health Care | 8.3% | 0.0% | +8.3pp |
| Industrials | 8.1% | 0.0% | +8.1pp |
| Consumer Staples | 4.9% | 0.0% | +4.9pp |
| Energy | 3.4% | 0.0% | +3.4pp |
Δ is SWPPX minus XLF, in percentage points. Sector data is not published by every issuer, so “Unclassified” is a real category rather than a gap in the table.
What each fund holds alone
88.0% of SWPPX by weight, held in no part of XLF.
3.7% of XLF by weight, held in no part of SWPPX.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| SWPPX | XLF | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 38.3% | 57.0% |
| Positions held | 503 | 78 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $2 | $8 |
Cost is the expense ratio applied to $10,000; it excludes any brokerage commission, bid-ask spread or tax consequence. Figures are facts about the funds, not a suggestion about which to hold.
Frequently asked
How much do SWPPX and XLF overlap?
SWPPX and XLF overlap 11.5% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 71 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (SWPPX as of 2026-04-30, XLF as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between SWPPX and XLF calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If SWPPX holds a stock at 6% and XLF holds the same stock at 4%, 4% counts as shared. The result is bounded between 0% and 100%, and it is computed after looking through any fund-of-funds to the underlying holdings.
Is it redundant to hold both SWPPX and XLF?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 11.5% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does SWPPX own that XLF doesn't?
SWPPX holds 503 positions and XLF holds 78; 431 of SWPPX's positions don't appear in XLF at all, and they are 88.0% of SWPPX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares SWPPX and XLF. Paste your whole portfolio — brokerage, 401(k), IRA — and see the overlap across every fund at once, plus what you actually own underneath them and your own Effective Funds number. Free, no account, nothing stored.
X-ray my portfolio — free →Watch SWPPX vs XLF
We re-read both funds’ published holdings every weeknight. Leave an address and we'll tell you when what's inside actually changes.
Not sending yet — email alerts are built but switched off, and you'll be among the first when they turn on. No spam, one-click unsubscribe.
Related comparisons
Sources: issuer holdings files, SWPPX as of 2026-04-30, XLF as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.