FFLG vs QQQ
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, FFLG or QQQ?
Nearly the same fund. QQQ costs less.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.3%.
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 | FFLG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $635M | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.07% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 202 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +11.11% | +19.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.85% | +22.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.80% | +26.18%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.81% | +15.42%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.0% | 20.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -44.6% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,966 | $20,484Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.3% | 46.7%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 2, 2021 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 4, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.7 years).
FFLG 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 covers the 5.7 years both funds cover.
FFLG vs QQQ Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year FFLG returned +14.85% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, FFLG is up 11.11% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.
Over three years, FFLG compounded at +25.80% per year against +26.18% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +9.81% and +15.42% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +15.61% annualized vs +9.42%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.0% compared with 20.1% 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 -44.6% for FFLG 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 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFLG charges 0.38% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $18 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFLG currently yields 0.07% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
66.3% of FFLG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 68.9% of QQQ's money is in holdings FFLG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
32 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in FFLG and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 202 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 62 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for FFLG (28.1% of the fund), and 56 for FFLG that do not appear in QQQ (27.6%).
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 FFLG | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 17.18% | 8.33% | 8.85% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.13% | 7.35% | 0.22% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 11.36% | 3.05% | 8.31% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.21% | 5.76% | 1.55% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.50% | 5.02% | 1.52% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.88% | 4.07% | 1.19% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.05% | 3.26% | 0.21% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.45% | 4.17% | 2.72% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.64% | 2.53% | 0.11% |
| SPCXSpace Exploration Technologies | 1.58% | 2.70% | 1.12% |
68.9% of QQQ is already inside FFLG.
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, FFLG or QQQ?
FFLG has an expense ratio of 0.38% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFLG or QQQ?
Over the past year FFLG returned +14.85% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FFLG annualized +9.42% vs +15.61% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFLG or QQQ?
FFLG has been the more volatile fund at 22.0% annualized versus 20.1% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: FFLG -44.6% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both FFLG and QQQ?
FFLG and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FFLG and QQQ?
68.9% of QQQ's money is in holdings FFLG also owns. 68.9% of QQQ's is in holdings FFLG also owns. They hold 32 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in FFLG and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFLG or QQQ?
FFLG yields 0.07% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than FFLG?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.