HELS vs QQQ

HELS vs QQQ

Which is better, HELS or QQQ?

Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. HELS is less concentrated, with 39.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%.

Lower Fees: QQQLess Concentrated: HELS

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

MetricHELSQQQ
Expense Ratio0.70%0.18%Best
AUM$17M$506.1B
Dividend Yield0.02%0.42%
Holdings51321
YTD Return-3.87%+19.30%Best
1Y Return-+22.47%
3Y Return (annualized)-+26.18%
5Y Return (annualized)-+15.42%
Top 10 Weight39.8%Best46.7%
Fund FamilyHedgeye Asset ManagementInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Growth
InceptionDec 10, 2025Mar 10, 1999

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

HELS 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.

HELS vs QQQ Performance

Hedgeye 130/30 Equity ETF (HELS) is an ETF from Hedgeye Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Year to date, HELS is down 3.87% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

HELS charges 0.70% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $70 vs $18 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, HELS currently yields 0.02% against 0.42% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

HELS already in QQQ30.1%
QQQ already in HELS40.7%

30.1% of HELS's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 40.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings HELS also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

18 positions in common, counted across the 88 positions we hold weights for in HELS and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 51 and 321.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 76 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for HELS (56.3% of the fund), and 36 for HELS that do not appear in QQQ (73.5%).

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 HELSWeight in QQQDifference
AAPLApple, Inc4.63%7.35%2.72%
NVDANvidia Corp2.99%8.33%5.34%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp3.67%5.76%2.09%
METAMeta Platforms Inc2.95%3.26%0.31%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc1.99%4.07%2.08%
INTCIntel Corporation1.82%2.64%0.82%
PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc2.22%1.80%0.42%
CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc2.15%1.13%1.02%
SHOP:CAShopify Inc2.29%0.75%1.54%
MRVLMarvell Technology Inc2.06%0.97%1.09%

40.7% of QQQ is already inside HELS.

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

HELSQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, HELS or QQQ?

HELS has an expense ratio of 0.70% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between HELS and QQQ?

40.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings HELS also owns. 40.7% of QQQ's is in holdings HELS also owns. They hold 18 positions in common, counted across the 88 positions we hold weights for in HELS and 101 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, HELS or QQQ?

HELS yields 0.02% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than HELS?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. HELS is less concentrated, with 39.8% 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.