CCIZX vs XLK (2026)
Columbia Seligman Technology and Information Fund Institutional Class and Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund side by side. XLK is the cheaper fund (0.08% vs 0.89% expense ratio). Over the last five years CCIZX returned more (+180.50% vs +130.62%, total return). Their portfolios overlap by about 32% of weight. Not investment advice.
Fund facts#
Data provided bySource: Twelve DataReturns as of market close, Oct 30, 2026. The charts run through the Oct 30 close.
| CCIZX | XLK | |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Sector Funds | Technology |
| Expense ratio | 0.89% | 0.08% |
| AUM | $28.8B | $123.9B |
| Distribution yield | — | 0.49% |
| Holdings | 75 | 74 |
| 1M total | -7.5% | -8.3% |
| YTD total | +46.5% | +25.1% |
| 1Y total | +41.7% | +20.1% |
| 3Y total | +213% | +125% |
| 5Y total | +180% | +131% |
| 10Y total | — | +738% |
| 3Y total CAGR | +46.4%/yr | +31.0%/yr |
| 5Y total CAGR | +22.9%/yr | +18.2%/yr |
| 10Y total CAGR | — | +23.7%/yr |
| Issuer | Columbia | State Street |
| Inception | — | 1998-12-16 |
All returns are total returns (dividends reinvested), through the latest price during the session. CAGR = compound annual growth rate. '—' means the fund's history doesn't span the horizon. A mutual fund's AUM is its whole fund's, every share class together (its SEC filing); an ETF's is its own. Returns run to Oct 30, 2026, the last month-end, as fund companies report a mutual fund's: a fund that pays monthly books each month's income on its last business day, so a return to a later day would leave that month's income out.
Annualized returns (CAGR)#
Data provided bySource: Twelve DataCompound annual growth rate per holding period, total return, from weekly adjusted closes. Horizons a fund's history can't span show no bar; horizons no fund spans are omitted.
Performance, rebased#
Data provided bySource: Twelve DataReturns by year#
Data provided bySource: Twelve Data| Year | CCIZX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | — | +34.3% |
| 2018 | — | -1.7% |
| 2019 | — | +49.9% |
| 2020 | +44.7% | +43.6% |
| 2021 | +39.3% | +34.7% |
| 2022 | -31.0% | -27.7% |
| 2023 | +44.6% | +56.0% |
| 2024 | +27.0% | +21.6% |
| 2025 | +37.7% | +24.6% |
| 2026 YTD | +46.5% | +25.1% |
Total returns (dividends reinvested), calendar years.
Returns by year, charted#
Holdings overlap#
CCIZX and XLK overlap by about 32% of portfolio weight — 28 shared holdings out of 75 in CCIZX and 74 in XLK, from each fund's latest SEC filing (Aug 31, 2026 / Jun 30, 2026).
Top 10 holdings, side by side#
Merged top 10 across the funds — each column is the holding's % of that fund.
Sector weights#
| Sector | CCIZX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Technology | 72.1% | 99.3% |
| Industrials | 8.0% | 0.0% |
| Communication Services | 5.8% | 0.7% |
| Financials | 5.2% | 0.0% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| Energy | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Not on ChartRow | 4.6% | 0.0% |
Sector weights, charted#
Estimated portfolio characteristics#
Data provided bySource: Twelve Data| CCIZX | XLK | |
|---|---|---|
| P/E (trailing) | — | — |
| P/B | 6.3 | 10.4 |
| Dividend yield | 0.49% | 0.59% |
| Earnings growth (TTM) | +63.4% | +71.7% |
Weighted by each fund's filed holdings, over the members we track. Shown only when every fund's tracked coverage is high enough for the average to mean something.
Growth from any starting date#
Data provided bySource: Twelve DataHover to move the starting point — every fund rebases to 1× at that date, so the comparison holds from any entry point back to 2019 (the earliest date all 2 funds existed). Log scale, weekly total returns.
Fund flows#
| Period | CCIZX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 2026 | +$46.1M | — |
| Jul 2026 | +$64M | — |
| Jun 2026 | +$25.4M | −$509.6M |
| May 2026 | — | +$632.8M |
| Apr 2026 | — | +$2.2B |
| Mar 2026 | — | +$199M |
Net creations minus redemptions, derived from consecutive SEC N-PORT filings. The form only exists since mid-2019.
Fund flows, charted#
Methodology#
Returns are total returns (dividends reinvested) from daily adjusted closes. Holdings, overlap, sector weights and flows derive from each fund's public SEC filings (Form N-PORT), anchored on the latest filing and rolled forward daily by price moves. Overlap is the sum of the smaller weight across shared holdings. See each fund's full holdings: CCIZX holdings · XLK holdings. Past performance does not predict future returns; not investment advice.
FAQ#
- CCIZX or XLK — which is better?
- XLK is the cheaper fund (0.08% vs 0.89% expense ratio). Over the last five years CCIZX returned more (+180.50% vs +130.62%, total return). Their portfolios overlap by about 32% of weight. CCIZX, a managed sector fund, against XLK, the sector's index ETF.
- How much do CCIZX and XLK overlap?
- CCIZX and XLK overlap by about 32% of portfolio weight, sharing 28 holdings (per each fund's latest SEC N-PORT filing, weights rolled forward to today).
- Is ChartRow affiliated with any of these funds?
- No. ChartRow is independent and not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by Columbia, State Street. Comparisons are derived independently from public SEC filings and market data; not investment advice.