GGRW vs ONEQ
Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF vs Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Which is better, GGRW or ONEQ?
ONEQ has been ahead.
GGRW has a lower expense ratio. ONEQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. GGRW is less concentrated, with 50.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%.
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 | GGRW | ONEQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.00%Best | 0.21% |
| AUM | $8M | $10.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.40% | 0.56% |
| Holdings | 84 | 1,014 |
| YTD Return | +5.88% | +15.63%Best |
| 1Y Return | +6.50% | +19.62%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.33% | +26.25%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.98% | +13.63%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.3% | 19.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -50.3% | -35.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,012 | $18,944Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 50.0%Best | 56.8% |
| Fund Family | Gabelli Funds | Fidelity Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 16, 2021 | Sep 25, 2003 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 16, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.7 years).
GGRW vs ONEQ 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.
GGRW vs ONEQ Performance
Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) is an ETF from Gabelli Funds and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year GGRW returned +6.50% while ONEQ returned +19.62%. Year to date, GGRW is up 5.88% versus a gain of 15.63% for ONEQ.
Over three years, GGRW compounded at +25.33% per year against +26.25% for ONEQ; over five years the annualized figures are +6.98% and +13.63% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, ONEQ has the edge at +13.13% annualized vs +7.33%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GGRW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.3% compared with 19.5% for ONEQ. 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 -50.3% for GGRW and -35.2% for ONEQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GGRW charges 0.00% per year while ONEQ charges 0.21%. On a $10,000 position that is $0 vs $21 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GGRW currently yields 0.40% against 0.56% for ONEQ.
Holdings Overlap
61.4% of GGRW's money is in holdings ONEQ also owns. 62.2% of ONEQ's money is in holdings GGRW also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
21 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in GGRW and 1,011 in ONEQ, against full books of 84 and 1,014.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 742 positions for ONEQ that do not appear in our book for GGRW (35.6% of the fund), and 18 for GGRW that do not appear in ONEQ (35.4%).
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 GGRW | Weight in ONEQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corporation | 10.02% | 11.86% | 1.84% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.72% | 10.24% | 6.52% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.46% | 8.08% | 3.62% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 5.83% | 5.71% | 0.12% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc Cl C | 6.00% | 3.96% | 2.04% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc Class A | 4.17% | 3.37% | 0.80% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.97% | 3.55% | 0.42% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.97% | 3.07% | 1.10% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc Com | 3.83% | 0.90% | 2.93% |
| CRWDcrowdstrike holdings inc - a | 3.24% | 0.58% | 2.66% |
62.2% of ONEQ is already inside GGRW.
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, GGRW or ONEQ?
GGRW has an expense ratio of 0.00% while ONEQ charges 0.21%. GGRW is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GGRW or ONEQ?
Over the past year GGRW returned +6.50% vs +19.62% for ONEQ, so ONEQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), GGRW annualized +7.33% vs +13.13% for ONEQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GGRW or ONEQ?
GGRW has been the more volatile fund at 21.3% annualized versus 19.5% for ONEQ. Worst drawdown: GGRW -50.3% vs ONEQ -35.2%.
Should I hold both GGRW and ONEQ?
GGRW and ONEQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 GGRW and ONEQ?
62.2% of ONEQ's money is in holdings GGRW also owns. 62.2% of ONEQ's is in holdings GGRW also owns. They hold 21 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in GGRW and 1,011 in ONEQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, GGRW or ONEQ?
GGRW yields 0.40% while ONEQ yields 0.56%, so ONEQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ONEQ better than GGRW?
GGRW has a lower expense ratio. ONEQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. GGRW is less concentrated, with 50.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.