What is the main structural difference between iShares Global Energy ETF and Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund?

The primary difference lies in their scope and size. iShares Global Energy ETF has net assets of $3.0 billion, while Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund holds $41.3 billion. The global fund includes international exposure, whereas the SPDR fund focuses on the US energy sector. This structural distinction impacts liquidity and potential diversification.

How do the expense ratios of these energy ETFs compare?

iShares Global Energy ETF has an expense ratio of 0.37%, which is significantly higher than the 0.08% charged by Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund. This 0.29 percentage point difference represents an additional annual cost for investors in the global fund, potentially reducing net returns over time compared to the lower-cost US-focused alternative.

What is the impact of the expense ratio difference on long-term returns?

With a 0.37% expense ratio, iShares Global Energy ETF costs 0.29 percentage points more annually than Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund's 0.08%. Over extended periods, this fee differential compounds, potentially eroding a noticeable portion of gross returns. Investors prioritising cost efficiency may favour the lower-fee fund, all else being equal.

How similar are the top holdings of iShares Global Energy ETF and Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund?

Both funds share identical top-10 holdings: XOM, CVX, COP, MPC, VLO, PSX, WMB, SLB, EOG, and TRGP. However, the weighting differs notably. In Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund, XOM and CVX comprise over 40% of the portfolio, showing heavier concentration in US integrated majors compared to the more balanced allocation in iShares Global Energy ETF.

How do the dividend yields of these two ETFs differ?

iShares Global Energy ETF offers a dividend yield of 2.76%, higher than the 2.47% yield of Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund. This difference may reflect varying compositions of income-generating stocks within each fund's portfolio. Yield alone does not indicate total return, as capital appreciation and depreciation also play significant roles in overall performance.

What does the geographic focus of each fund mean for investors?

iShares Global Energy ETF includes international holdings alongside US integrated oil companies, offering broader geographic exposure. Conversely, Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund maintains a US-only focus. This distinction means the global fund may be influenced by international energy markets and regulatory environments, while the SPDR fund is primarily affected by domestic US energy sector dynamics.

How does the inception date affect the historical context of these funds?

Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund launched on Dec 16, 1998, giving it a longer operational history than iShares Global Energy ETF, which was established on Nov 12, 2001. The earlier inception provides more extensive historical data for performance analysis, though both funds have been active through various energy market cycles, allowing investors to review long-term behaviours.

What should investors consider regarding the transparency of tracking indices?

Both iShares Global Energy ETF and Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund have tracking indices marked as 'not available' in the provided data. This limits the ability to immediately verify the exact benchmark methodology. Investors should seek additional documentation from fund issuers to understand precisely how each fund replicates its intended market exposure and manages tracking error.

What information is missing regarding sector weights for both funds?

For both iShares Global Energy ETF and Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund, sector weights are listed as 'not available'. This prevents investors from performing a precise breakdown of sub-sector exposure within the broader energy category, making it challenging to assess fine-grained diversification or concentration risks beyond top holdings analysis.

Which fund might suit investors prioritising low costs?

Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund charges an expense ratio of 0.08%, considerably less than the 0.37% fee for iShares Global Energy ETF. Investors seeking to minimise operational costs within a US-centric energy portfolio might view the lower fee structure as advantageous, though this must be weighed against the potential benefit of global diversification.

What is the key educational takeaway from comparing IXC and XLE?

Comparing these funds highlights trade-offs between global diversification with a higher fee (IXC) and concentrated US exposure with a lower fee (XLE). Understanding differences in expense ratios, holdings concentration, and geographic scope enables more informed decision-making. This comparison is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

IXC vs XLE

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare IXC and XLE to review fees, holdings and dividends. This page examines how each fund tracks its market, contrasting the 0.37% expense ratio of IXC against the 0.08% cost of XLE, while analysing top holdings like XOM and CVX. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IXC

Metric

XLE

0.37%

Expense Ratio

0.08%

2.76%

Dividend Yield

2.47%

$2.98B

Net Assets

$41.31B

Holdings

Nov 12, 2001

Inception Date

Dec 16, 1998

–

Index Tracked

–

Equity Energy

Fund Category

Equity Energy

XLE costs about $29.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	IXC	XLE
XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corporation	17.58%	23.09%
CVXChevron Corporation	10.82%	17.71%
COPConocoPhillips	4.14%	6.78%
MPCMarathon Petroleum Corporation	3.12%	4.83%
VLOValero Energy Corporation	3.11%	4.82%
PSXPhillips 66	2.85%	4.75%
WMBThe Williams Companies, Inc.	2.30%	4.35%
SLBSLB N.V.	1.99%	3.87%
EOGEOG Resources, Inc.	1.98%	3.86%
TRGPTarga Resources Corp.	1.64%	3.19%

Discover More Comparisons

IXC vs IYC

Compare IXC and IYC ETFs. Analyse fees, holdings, dividends, and tracking differences for global energy versus US consumer discretionary sectors.

IXC vs VDE

Compare IXC and VDE ETFs on fees, holdings, dividends and tracking. Note: index data unavailable. Educational only, not advice. Neutral comparison.

FENY vs XLE

Compare FENY and XLE energy ETFs. Review 0.08% fees, $2.1bn vs $41.3bn assets, yields, holdings and tracking. Neutral data for informed research.

Investment Analysis

IXC

Pros

The fund offers a 2.76% dividend yield, higher than the comparable energy alternative.
Its global strategy includes international holdings alongside the major US integrated oil companies.
With net assets of $3.0 billion, the fund is sufficiently large to support ongoing operational viability.

Considerations

An expense ratio of 0.37% is notably higher than the 0.08% cost of the US-only competitor.
The tracking index is not available, limiting immediate transparency regarding the specific underlying benchmark methodology.
Sector weights are not available, preventing a precise breakdown of sub-sector exposure within the energy category.

XLE

Pros

The fund carries a low expense ratio of 0.08%, enhancing net returns for long-term investors.
With net assets of $41.3 billion, the fund is exceptionally large and liquid.
The heavy concentration in US integrated majors, led by XOM and CVX, is clearly disclosed in top holdings.

Considerations

Its dividend yield of 2.47% is lower than the global peer's 2.76% return.
The top ten holdings are heavily weighted, with XOM and CVX comprising over 40% of the portfolio.
Sector weights are not available, restricting a granular analysis of the fund's sub-sector diversification within energy.

About IXC and XLE

IXC (IXC)

The iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC) offers investors diversified exposure to the global energy sector. Launched in November 2001, this fund holds approximately 73 companies involved in the exploration, development, production, and distribution of energy resources worldwide. With net assets of roughly USD 2.98 billion, it provides a cost-efficient way to access established energy giants and mid-cap players across multiple geographies. The fund carries an expense ratio of 0.37% and has recently offered a dividend yield of around 2.76%, reflecting the income potential typical of mature energy firms. As with any sector-specific investment, values can fluctuate significantly due to changes in commodity prices, geopolitical events, and shifts toward renewable energy. This ETF is designed for those seeking targeted sector exposure rather than broad market diversification. It is crucial to consider your personal financial goals and risk tolerance, as returns are not guaranteed and losses are possible.

XLE (XLE)

The Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE) is an exchange-traded fund designed to track the performance of the energy sector in the United States. It holds a diversified basket of companies involved in oil and gas exploration, refining, and distribution. With an expense ratio of just 0.08%, it remains a low-cost option for investors seeking exposure to this specific industry. The fund currently manages approximately USD 41.31 billion in net assets and holds around 24 stocks, providing concentrated yet significant access to major energy players. Since its inception in December 1998, XLE has served as a key tool for those looking to invest in energy trends. While it offers a dividend yield of 2.47%, investors should remember that energy prices can be volatile, causing the fund’s value to rise and fall.

Buy IXC or XLE in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

IXC vs XLE

Fund Snapshot