CRBN vs QQQ
iShares Low Carbon Optimized MSCI ACWI ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CRBN or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. CRBN led over the full window, QQQ over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. CRBN is less concentrated, with 25.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%.
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
| Metric | CRBN | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $1.2B | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.00% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 1,123 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +10.66% | +19.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.50% | +22.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.16% | +26.18%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.72% | +15.42%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3634.2% | 17.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.1%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,639 | $20,484Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 25.6%Best | 46.7% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 8, 2014 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 28, 2013 to Oct 14, 2026 (13.1 years).
CRBN 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.
CRBN vs QQQ Performance
iShares Low Carbon Optimized MSCI ACWI ETF (CRBN) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CRBN returned +15.50% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, CRBN is up 10.66% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.
Over three years, CRBN compounded at +21.16% per year against +26.18% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +10.72% and +15.42% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, CRBN has the edge at +56.99% annualized vs +19.16%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CRBN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 3634.2% compared with 17.9% for QQQ. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -33.1% for CRBN and -35.1% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.06. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CRBN charges 0.20% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $18 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CRBN currently yields 2.00% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
36.6% of CRBN's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 90.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings CRBN also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside CRBN. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
86 positions in common, counted across the 1,035 positions we hold weights for in CRBN and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 1,123 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 14 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for CRBN (9.1% of the fund), and 277 for CRBN that do not appear in QQQ (31.3%).
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
| Stock | Weight in CRBN | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 5.21% | 8.33% | 3.12% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.79% | 7.35% | 2.56% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 3.56% | 5.76% | 2.20% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.37% | 4.07% | 1.70% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.24% | 5.02% | 3.78% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 1.00% | 4.17% | 3.17% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 2.05% | 3.05% | 1.00% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.56% | 3.26% | 1.70% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 1.41% | 2.85% | 1.44% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.52% | 2.53% | 1.01% |
90.3% of QQQ is already inside CRBN.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CRBN or QQQ?
CRBN has an expense ratio of 0.20% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CRBN or QQQ?
Over the past year CRBN returned +15.50% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), CRBN annualized +56.99% vs +19.16% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CRBN or QQQ?
CRBN has been the more volatile fund at 3634.2% annualized versus 17.9% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: CRBN -33.1% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both CRBN and QQQ?
CRBN and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of -0.06, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CRBN and QQQ?
90.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings CRBN also owns. 90.3% of QQQ's is in holdings CRBN also owns. They hold 86 positions in common, counted across the 1,035 positions we hold weights for in CRBN and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, CRBN or QQQ?
CRBN yields 2.00% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so CRBN currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CRBN?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. CRBN led over the full window, QQQ over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. CRBN is less concentrated, with 25.6% 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.