Choosing between State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP +0.58%) and Global X - MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF (MLPX +2.03%) depends on whether investors prioritize upstream exploration volatility or the steadier income potential associated with midstream infrastructure.
Investors looking for energy exposure may choose between different stages of the production cycle. State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF focuses mainly on exploration and production companies, while also including refining, marketing, and integrated oil exposure. This area could appeal to those seeking growth tied to commodity prices. Meanwhile, Global X - MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF focuses on the midstream segment, which manages the transport and storage of these resources. This infrastructure focus may offer a more defensive posture within the energy sector.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | XOP | MLPX |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | SPDR | Global X |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.45% |
| 1-yr return (as of May 29, 2026) | 38.60% | 24.60% |
| Dividend yield | 1.83% | 4.20% |
| Beta | 0.05 | 0.41 |
| AUM | $3.4 billion | $3.5 billion |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.
The Global X fund carries a higher expense ratio of 0.45%, compared to 0.35% for the SPDR fund. However, income-seeking investors may find the Global X fund more appealing given its significantly higher trailing-12-month distribution yield of 4.20%.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | XOP | MLPX |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 yr) | -35.00% | -19.70% |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return) | $2,073 | $2,668 |
What's inside
The Global X - MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF focuses on midstream energy infrastructure, with roughly 30 holdings concentrated in pipelines and storage. This concentration results in its largest positions including TC Energy (NYSE:TRP) at 8.54%, Enbridge (NYSE:ENB) at 8.50%, and The Williams Companies (NYSE:WMB) at 8.03%. Launched in 2013, it has paid $3.04 per share over the trailing 12 months. It tracks the Solactive MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index, offering exposure to master limited partnerships alongside corporations that own energy transport assets. Its price has ranged from $57.66 -- $78.36 over the past year.
Conversely, the State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF tracks a modified equal-weighted index of 49 exploration and production companies. This strategy provides broader exposure across the industry sub-segments. Its largest positions include SM Energy (NYSE:SM) at 3.23%, HF Sinclair (NYSE:DINO) at 3.21%, and Marathon Petroleum (NYSE:MPC) at 2.94%. Launched in 2006, it has paid $3.25 per share over the trailing 12 months. It seeks to track the S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Select Industry Index to capture the upstream and refining segments of the market. Its price has ranged from $119.67 -- $190.36 over the past year.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
Energy exposure can mean owning companies whose earnings swing with commodity prices, or owning infrastructure businesses built around moving and storing those commodities. That distinction sits at the center of the difference between the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF and the Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF.
XOP holds oil and gas exploration, production, refining, and integrated energy companies, making its returns closely tied to energy prices, margins, and investor appetite for cyclical energy stocks. That structure can deliver stronger upside when commodity markets and energy earnings improve, but it can also trigger sharper declines when prices weaken or margins come under pressure. MLPX takes a different approach by focusing on midstream infrastructure, including MLPs and energy infrastructure companies. Its return profile is more income-oriented and less directly tied to daily oil and gas price swings, though it still carries equity, interest-rate, regulatory, and energy-sector risks.
XOP is better aligned with investors seeking more direct participation in the energy cycle through producers and refiners. MLPX may fit investors who want energy exposure tied more to infrastructure cash flows and distributions. The key question for investors to consider is whether energy is meant to provide cyclical commodity-linked upside or a more income-oriented infrastructure allocation.
