Technology exchange-traded funds tied to the semiconductor and broader software-and-services complex finished the latest comparison on sharply different terms, underscoring how index construction can drive both returns and volatility. The iShares Semiconductor ETF, which tracks semiconductors, and the Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF, which spans a wider mix of technology companies, posted markedly different performance profiles over the trailing year as well as different risk metrics.
Key takeaways
- Price and fees: Fidelity’s information technology fund trades at $286.79 (as of August 11, 2026) with a 0.08% expense ratio, while iShares’ semiconductor fund trades at $534.20 with a 0.33% expense ratio.
- Catalyst: The funds diverge because one is concentrated in semiconductors (30 holdings) and the other holds nearly 300 technology stocks across the sector.
- Performance: Over the past 12 months, FTEC returned 38.5% versus SOXX’s 119.0%, according to figures reported as of August 11, 2026.
- Risk implication: SOXX carries higher volatility, with a beta of 2.32 versus 1.46 for FTEC, and a deeper five-year max drawdown of -45.75% versus -34.95%.
What’s the difference between the two funds?
SOXX is built to be a targeted semiconductor play. According to the fund description provided in the comparison, it is designed to track the semiconductor industry and is highly concentrated, holding 30 companies. Its top positions include Nvidia, Broadcom, and Advanced Micro Devices. The fund was launched in 2001 and paid $1.47 per share in dividends over the trailing 12 months, per the same set of data.
FTEC, by contrast, is structured for broader technology exposure. The comparison indicates it holds nearly 300 stocks across the technology industry, with largest positions including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft. FTEC launched in 2013 and paid $1.00 per share in dividends over the trailing 12 months.
Cost and concentration: why returns can diverge
Investor outcomes can differ even when both funds sit under the “technology” umbrella because of how index concentration affects performance. The comparison shows that SOXX’s semiconductor-only mandate makes it more sensitive to swings in chip stocks, while FTEC’s larger footprint across technology subsectors can cushion investors if semiconductors underperform other parts of tech.
Cost is another differentiator. The comparison cites an expense ratio of 0.08% for FTEC versus 0.33% for SOXX. It also states that on a $10,000 investment, annual fees would be $8 for FTEC and $33 for SOXX, based on the stated expense ratios.
Performance and risk metrics investors track
According to the figures cited as of August 11, 2026, the funds’ trailing performance and risk measures reflect their different mandates. FTEC posted a 38.5% 1-year return, while SOXX delivered 119.0% over the same trailing period. The funds also differ on volatility: the comparison lists beta (5Y monthly) of 1.46 for FTEC and 2.32 for SOXX.
The downside profile is similarly uneven. Data in the comparison show a five-year maximum drawdown of -34.95% for FTEC versus -45.75% for SOXX. Total-return growth over five years also diverged: FTEC’s growth of $1,000 to $2,436 contrasts with SOXX’s growth to $3,602, based on the reported total return figures.
Dividend characteristics were also different in the reported dataset. The comparison lists dividend yield of 0.37% for FTEC and 0.29% for SOXX, with both yields calculated from trailing-12-month distributions.
How to choose between a semiconductor focus and broader tech exposure
Choosing between SOXX and FTEC typically comes down to risk tolerance and how concentrated a portfolio needs to be in semiconductors. For investors seeking broader technology exposure, FTEC’s diversification across software, services, and hardware can reduce the impact of a single subsector’s downturn—an important consideration given semiconductor cyclicality and the sector’s sensitivity to demand and investment cycles.
For investors who want direct exposure to semiconductor fundamentals, SOXX’s concentrated approach can generate stronger upside when chips outperform, as shown by the much higher 1-year return reported in the comparison. The trade-off is that concentration can also amplify losses during periods when semiconductors lag broader technology.
With this setup, investors comparing the two funds may also consider how they fit into an existing portfolio. A semiconductor-focused allocation may complement diversified equity holdings, while a broader technology fund may serve as a more all-purpose satellite allocation where exposure to multiple technology segments is desired.
Investors watching tech ETFs next may focus on semiconductor demand signals, broader technology earnings trends, and macro drivers such as interest-rate expectations, which can influence equity valuations across growth-oriented segments. Upcoming catalysts for ETF performance will depend on the timing of sector earnings and any guidance that affects expectations for chip demand and technology spending.
