RSPS vs XLP: Equal-Weight vs Market-Cap Weighting in Consumer Staples ETFs

Key Takeaways

• RSPS equal-weights roughly 37–39 S&P 500 consumer staples names, reducing mega-cap concentration; XLP uses market-cap weighting and is dominated by a handful of industry giants.
• Cost efficiency is not equal: XLP charges a 0.08% expense ratio versus 0.40% for RSPS, a meaningful long-term headwind for the equal-weight fund.
• Liquidity and scale diverge sharply: XLP holds roughly $14–15 billion in assets, while RSPS manages only a few hundred million dollars, giving XLP materially tighter spreads and deeper trading volume.
• Diversification profile differs by design: RSPS spreads risk evenly across holdings, whereas XLP concentrates roughly a fifth of its portfolio in just two retail names.
• Tickeron AI Verdict: XLP is the favored ticker of the two, reflecting its lower cost, superior liquidity, and more consistent relative positioning in recent market cycles.

Why This Comparison Matters

RSPS and XLP both sit squarely inside the consumer staples sector, yet they are far from interchangeable. This ETF comparison matters right now because investors increasingly treat staples as a defensive anchor amid concerns about economic growth, inflation, and equity-market volatility. The two funds do not compete on identical terms: RSPS offers an equal-weighted alternative that dilutes the influence of the largest companies, while XLP represents the traditional, capitalization-weighted benchmark for the sector. Understanding that structural contrast—rather than any short-term price gap—is the key to evaluating their sector exposure, fund performance, and relative positioning.

RSPS: An Equal-Weight Approach to Staples

RSPS tracks the S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples Index, a passively managed strategy that assigns roughly equal weight to every consumer staples company within the S&P 500. The fund holds approximately 37–39 positions, and no single name dominates: top holdings such as KR, COST, PG, PM, and MO each account for roughly 3% of assets. The portfolio is rebalanced quarterly to restore equal weights, which mechanically tilts exposure toward mid-sized names and away from mega-cap leaders. Sector allocation is almost entirely consumer defensive, with a small consumer cyclical component. RSPS carries a 0.40% expense ratio—higher than its cap-weighted peers—and its comparatively modest asset base of a few hundred million dollars translates into lighter trading liquidity and wider bid-ask spreads relative to larger staples funds. I also checked this using Tickeron’s AI Screener to see how the holdings compare across the sector.

XLP: The Cap-Weighted Staples Benchmark

XLP seeks to track the Consumer Staples Select Sector Index, the market-capitalization-weighted representation of consumer staples companies within the S&P 500. With roughly 37–38 holdings, the fund is heavily concentrated at the top: WMT and COST together represent nearly 20% of the portfolio, followed by PG, KO, and PM. Other notable positions include MO, CL, MDLZ, PEP, and TGT. This structure means XLP's performance is disproportionately driven by its largest constituents. The fund charges a competitive 0.08% expense ratio, launched in 1998, and manages roughly $14–15 billion in assets, giving it among the deepest liquidity in the consumer staples category. The portfolio is overwhelmingly consumer defensive, with minimal consumer cyclical exposure.

The Staples Sector Landscape

Both ETFs operate in a sector defined by necessity-driven demand for food, beverages, household products, and tobacco—businesses that tend to hold up better than cyclicals when the economy softens. In recent market cycles, investors have rotated toward staples as a hedge against slowing growth and sticky inflation, supporting defensive positioning across the sector. At the same time, the group faces structural challenges: input-cost inflation, pricing pressure on packaged goods, shifting consumer preferences toward private-label and value brands, and regulatory scrutiny of nicotine products. These forces weigh unevenly across holdings, which is precisely why weighting methodology matters—cap-weighted funds feel the impact of mega-cap retail leaders more acutely, while equal-weight funds are more sensitive to mid-cap food, beverage, and household names.

How Performance and Positioning Stack Up

Over recent months and market cycles, XLP has generally delivered stronger total returns and a shallower maximum drawdown than RSPS, reflecting both the momentum of its largest holdings and its structural cost advantage. The concentration in WMT and COST has worked in XLP's favor as large-cap staples have outperformed smaller sector constituents. RSPS, by contrast, carries greater exposure to mid-cap names such as food processors and convenience retailers, whose earnings cycles have been more uneven. Both funds exhibit low beta relative to the broad market, confirming their defensive role, but XLP's lower expense ratio and tighter spreads give it a subtle compounding edge in relative positioning. In volatile environments, the difference in liquidity also becomes more pronounced, favoring the larger, more heavily traded fund. From what I see, the data consistently points to these structural differences driving the outcomes.

Using Tickeron’s AI Tools for ETF Analysis

One tool I turn to for comparing funds like these is Tickeron’s AI Screener. It lets me quickly filter ETFs by industry, technical patterns, fundamentals, and performance metrics, which helps surface relative strengths without manual effort. I find it particularly useful when evaluating liquidity and cost factors side by side.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Weighing structural strength, cost efficiency, diversification, trend consistency, and risk exposure, Tickeron's AI would currently favor XLP over RSPS. XLP combines a materially lower expense ratio, substantially deeper liquidity, and more consistent relative performance in recent market cycles, while its concentration in mega-cap staples has aligned with prevailing sector momentum. RSPS offers a genuinely differentiated equal-weight approach that reduces single-stock risk, but its higher cost and lighter trading profile make it a less compelling holding in most comparative frameworks. This assessment is probabilistic and reflects observable fund characteristics rather than a prediction of future returns.

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

Contributor

Sergey Savastiouk|Expert

Sergey Savastiouk, Ph.D. has a degree in Applied Mathematics from Moscow University and has extensive experience as an entrepreneur, investor, manager, and mathematician. His professional expertise is in applied mathematics, mathematical modeling, system and pattern analysis, and software and hardware system integration. He has served as the CEO of several hi-tech start-up companies and nonprofit organizations, which has given him proven capabilities in business strategy for high-tech start-up companies, market assessment, company formation, team building, product development, marketing, and sales. He has published numerous articles in journals and magazines on related fields. As a retail investor, he spent 15 years developing his proprietary trading and quantitative algorithms (now Tickeron’s A.I.), which brought him significant returns in trading the stock market. His current work and goal in founding Tickeron is to bring professional, sophisticated stock market analysis capabilities to retail investors via an easy-to-use interface.

Notable companies

Industry description

Market Cap

High and low price notable news

Volume