PFF vs PFXF: Preferred Securities ETFs with Distinct Sector Profiles

Key Takeaways

• PFF and PFXF both target U.S. exchange-listed preferred and hybrid securities, but they differ sharply in sector exposure rather than in core strategy.
• PFF carries a heavy financials tilt (roughly 60–65% of assets), while PFXF deliberately excludes financial issuers, tilting instead toward utilities, software, and aerospace.
• PFXF charges a lower expense ratio (0.40%) than PFF (0.45%), a meaningful edge in an income-focused mandate.
• PFF is substantially larger and more liquid, with roughly $13 billion in assets versus about $2.3–2.5 billion for PFXF, and it holds far more positions.
• Both funds offer income potential in the mid-single-digit range, but their risk profiles diverge because of PFF's concentration in bank and financial preferreds.
• Tickeron AI Verdict: PFXF — the AI would favor PFXF for its lower cost, more balanced diversification, and reduced single-sector concentration risk.

Introduction

Preferred-securities ETFs fill a practical niche for income investors by blending bond-like distributions with equity-like characteristics. From what I see, PFF and PFXF stand out in this space, and a comparison feels timely amid shifting rate expectations and bank-sector dynamics. These funds do not track identical indexes; instead, they provide different paths to similar objectives—steady current income with a hybrid risk profile. The key distinction lies in structure: PFF mirrors the broad preferred market, whereas PFXF excludes financials altogether.

iShares Preferred and Income Securities ETF (PFF) Overview

Launched in 2007, PFF is a passive fund tracking the ICE Exchange-Listed Preferred & Hybrid Securities Index. It holds around 450 securities for broad coverage of the U.S. preferred and hybrid market and manages roughly $13 billion in assets, positioning it as the liquidity leader in the category. Its expense ratio stands at 0.45%. The standout feature of PFF remains its sector allocation, with financial issuers comprising about 60–65% of assets. Recent top holdings have included preferred and convertible-preferred securities from Boeing (BA), Strategy (MSTR), Alphabet (GOOGL), Wells Fargo (WFC), Oracle (ORCL), Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), and Bank of America (BAC). This setup delivers issuer diversification, yet the bank-heavy profile ties returns closely to financial institutions’ health and capital decisions. I also checked this using Tickeron’s AI Screener to see how the fund stacks up against peers in the category.

VanEck Preferred Securities ex Financials ETF (PFXF) Overview

Introduced in 2012, PFXF passively tracks the ICE Exchange-Listed Fixed & Adjustable Rate Non-Financial Preferred Securities Index. True to its name, it removes financial issuers, a choice driven by banks and insurers dominating preferred issuance. The fund holds roughly 115–120 positions and manages about $2.3–2.5 billion in assets, with a 0.40% expense ratio—the lower of the two. Removing financials shifts PFXF toward electric utilities and independent power producers (around 19%), software and IT services (about 17%), and aerospace and defense (near 10%). Recent top holdings include preferred securities from Boeing (BA), Oracle (ORCL), Strategy (MSTR), Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Albemarle (ALB), and NextEra Energy (NEE). The narrower portfolio raises single-issuer risk but lowers sector concentration compared with the broad preferred market.

Industry and Thematic Backdrop

Preferred securities occupy a middle ground between bonds and equities, delivering higher yields than most investment-grade debt while carrying greater credit and interest-rate sensitivity than common stocks. In the current setting, two main forces stand out. Interest-rate expectations shape preferred pricing because these securities pay fixed or reset-rate distributions that compete with Treasuries and high-yield debt. Bank capital and regulatory moves also weigh heavily on financial preferreds, the segment PFF emphasizes. For income investors, preferreds have shown durable appeal across cycles thanks to demand for tax-efficient, above-average yields. Yet the sector is not uniform: non-financial preferreds in utilities, software, and aerospace follow different credit drivers than bank preferreds, which link more directly to regulatory capital rules and credit cycles. This split defines how PFXF and PFF perform in practice.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

Over recent weeks and months, the two funds have largely moved together, reflecting their common exposure to preferred securities and rate-sensitive assets. Their relative positioning has differed, however. PFF has shown greater sensitivity to banking-sector sentiment given its 60–65% financial weighting, while PFXF has responded more to utility and technology preferreds. When financial credit concerns ease, PFF can gain from broad issuer diversification; when sector-specific risk rises, PFXF’s ex-financial approach has historically provided some insulation. On cost, PFXF maintains a steady edge at 0.40% versus 0.45%, which adds up for income investors over time. On liquidity, PFF remains the easier vehicle for larger trades given its bigger asset base and tighter spreads. Volatility profiles also vary: PFXF’s more concentrated holdings can magnify single-name moves, whereas PFF’s broader book tends to smooth those swings even as it concentrates sector risk.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Considering structural strength, cost efficiency, diversification, and risk exposure, Tickeron’s AI currently leans toward PFXF. Its 0.40% expense ratio undercuts PFF’s 0.45%, and the deliberate exclusion of financials removes the largest concentration risk in the broad preferred index. While PFF offers better liquidity and issuer breadth, PFXF provides a more balanced sector mix—utilities, software, and aerospace—that has historically delivered higher yields than financial preferreds and less exposure to bank-credit cycles. This reflects a probabilistic, factor-based preference rather than any single price forecast and should not be viewed as personalized investment advice.

Exploring Tickeron AI Tools for ETF Research

In my own analysis of preferred-securities ETFs, I find Tickeron’s AI-powered tools helpful for quickly scanning market patterns, fundamentals, and relative strength. The platform’s customizable filters let me compare funds like these on volatility, sector exposure, and performance metrics without manual effort. One thing that stands out is how these tools surface relative opportunities across income-focused strategies. I’m watching this closely because efficient screening supports more informed positioning in a rate-sensitive environment. Whether evaluating sector tilts or broader income ideas, the AI resources streamline the process in a practical way.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

Notable companies

Industry description

Market Cap

High and low price notable news

Volume