BRES vs QQQ

BRES vs QQQ

Which is better, BRES or QQQ?

Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. BRES is less concentrated, with 43.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%.

Lower Fees: QQQLess Concentrated: BRES

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricBRESQQQ
Expense Ratio0.79%0.18%Best
AUM$675M$506.1B
Dividend Yield0.17%0.42%
Holdings68321
YTD Return+5.37%+19.30%Best
1Y Return-+22.47%
3Y Return (annualized)-+26.18%
5Y Return (annualized)-+15.42%
Top 10 Weight43.2%Best46.7%
Fund FamilyBurney Investment ManagementInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Growth
InceptionFeb 4, 2026Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

BRES vs QQQ growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

BRES vs QQQ Performance

Burney US Equity Select ETF (BRES) is an ETF from Burney Investment Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Year to date, BRES is up 5.37% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

BRES charges 0.79% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $18 annually, a gap of $61 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BRES currently yields 0.17% against 0.42% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

BRES already in QQQ44.7%
QQQ already in BRES44.8%

44.7% of BRES's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 44.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings BRES also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

14 positions in common, counted across the 76 positions we hold weights for in BRES and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 68 and 321.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 79 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for BRES (51.5% of the fund), and 57 for BRES that do not appear in QQQ (51.2%).

Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in BRESWeight in QQQDifference
NVDANvidia Corp8.94%8.33%0.61%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp6.66%5.76%0.90%
AAPLApple, Inc4.89%7.35%2.46%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc5.92%3.05%2.87%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.3.63%5.02%1.39%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc4.03%4.07%0.04%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc1.57%4.17%2.60%
PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc2.57%1.80%0.77%
METAMeta Platforms Inc0.51%3.26%2.75%
FTNTFortinet Inc1.72%0.55%1.17%

44.8% of QQQ is already inside BRES.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

BRESQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, BRES or QQQ?

BRES has an expense ratio of 0.79% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $61 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between BRES and QQQ?

44.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings BRES also owns. 44.8% of QQQ's is in holdings BRES also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 76 positions we hold weights for in BRES and 101 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, BRES or QQQ?

BRES yields 0.17% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than BRES?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. BRES is less concentrated, with 43.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.