6 days ago
How To Avoid The Worst Sector ETFs In Q2 Of 2025
ETF - Exchange Traded Funds; stock market and exchange. Business; trading; investment funds; profit; ... More strategy. 3D illustration
Question: Why are there so many ETFs?
Answer: ETF issuance is profitable, so Wall Street keeps cranking out more products to sell.
The large number of ETFs has little to do with serving your best interests as an investor. I leverage this data to identify three red flags you can use to avoid the worst ETFs:
This issue is the easiest to avoid, and my advice is simple. Avoid all ETFs with less than $100 million in assets. Low levels of liquidity can lead to a discrepancy between the price of the ETF and the underlying value of the securities it holds. Small ETFs also generally have lower trading volume, which translates to higher trading costs via larger bid-ask spreads.
ETFs should be cheap, but not all of them are. The first step here is to benchmark what cheap means.
To ensure you are paying average or below average fees, invest only in ETFs with total annual costs below 0.53% – the average total annual costs of the 346 U.S. equity Sector ETFs my firm covers. The weighted average is lower at 0.24%%, which highlights how investors tend to put their money in ETFs with low fees.
Figure 1 shows InfraCap MLP ETF (AMZA) is the most expensive sector ETF and Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH) is the least expensive. No one provider provides more than one of the most expensive ETFs while State Street ETFs (XLC, XLP, XLF, XLE) ETFs are among the cheapest.
Figure 1: 5 Most and Least Expensive Sector ETFs
Most Expensive Sector ETFs 2Q25
Investors need not pay high fees for quality holdings. State Street Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) is the best ranked sector ETF in Figure 1. XLC's neutral Portfolio Management rating and 0.09% total annual cost earns it a very attractive rating. iShares U.S. Insurance ETF (IAK) is the best ranked sector ETF overall. IAK's attractive Portfolio Management rating and 0.43% total annual cost also earns it a very attractive rating.
On the other hand, Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH) holds poor stocks and earns my unattractive, despite having low total annual costs of 0.08%. No matter how cheap an ETF looks, if it holds bad stocks, its performance will be bad. The quality of an ETF's holdings matters more than its management fee.
Avoiding poor holdings is by far the hardest part of avoiding bad ETFs, but it is also the most important because an ETF's performance is determined more by its holdings than its costs. Figure 2 shows the ETFs within each sector with the worst holdings or portfolio management ratings.
Figure 2: Sector ETFs with the Worst Holdings
Worst Sector ETFs 2Q25
State Street appears more often than any other providers in Figure 2, which means that they offer the most ETFs with the worst holdings.
Global X Genomics & Biotechnology ETF (GNOM) is the worst rated ETF in Figure 2 based on my predictive overall rating. VanEck Green Infrastructure ETF (RNEW), State Street Utilities Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLU) ALPS Active REIT ETF (REIT), ProShares S&P Kensho Smart Factories ETF (MAKX), State Street SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR), and State Street SPDR S&P Telecom ETF (XTL) also earn a very unattractive predictive overall rating, which means not only do they hold poor stocks, they charge high total annual costs.
Buying an ETF without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. Put another way, research on ETF holdings is necessary due diligence because an ETF's performance is only as good as its holdings.
PERFORMANCE OF ETFs HOLDINGs – FEES = PERFORMANCE OF ETF
