So I've been looking at consumer staples exposure lately, and there's this interesting comparison between two ETFs that's worth thinking about if you're trying to build a more defensive position.

XLP from State Street and FSTA from Fidelity both give you access to consumer defensive stocks, but they're actually pretty different animals. XLP is the bigger player with over $16 billion in assets versus FSTA's $1.4 billion, and both charge the same 0.08% fee, so cost isn't really a differentiator here.

Here's where it gets interesting though. XLP focuses purely on large-cap consumer defensive plays and holds 36 stocks. FSTA casts a wider net with 96 holdings across the consumer defensive space plus some mid and small caps. That broader approach means FSTA has been hitting slightly better returns over the past five years—if you'd invested $1,000 five years ago, you'd have around $1,381 with FSTA versus $1,332 with XLP.

Both funds have weathered the volatility similarly, with maximum drawdowns hovering around 16% over that period. But FSTA's lower beta suggests it's been a bit less jumpy when markets get choppy. XLP does offer a marginally higher dividend yield at 2.4% compared to FSTA's 2.1%, so if income is your thing, that might matter.

The real difference comes down to diversification philosophy. XLP sticks with the household names—Walmart, Costco, Procter & Gamble dominate the portfolio. FSTA spreads things out more, which is probably why it's delivered slightly better long-term returns, averaging 6.5% annually over the past decade versus 5.9% for XLP.

When you're looking at consumer defensive ETF options, I'd lean toward FSTA if you want that extra stability and broader exposure. The diversification across different market caps within the consumer defensive sector seems to have paid off. XLP works fine if you prefer simplicity and the larger asset base appeals to you, but FSTA's approach to consumer defensive investing has shown better staying power over time.