IAU vs QQQ

IAU vs QQQ

Which is better, IAU or QQQ?

Gold against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IAU led over 3Y and 5Y, QQQ over 1Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns: split

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

MetricIAUQQQ
Expense Ratio0.25%0.18%Best
AUM$62.1B$506.1B
Dividend Yield0.00%0.42%
Holdings1321
YTD Return-5.51%+19.30%Best
1Y Return-1.23%+22.47%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+28.53%Best+26.18%
5Y Return (annualized)+17.65%Best+15.42%
Volatility (annualized)17.3%Best18.3%
Max Drawdown-45.1%Best-53.5%
$10,000 over 5 years$22,540Best$20,484
Fund FamilyiShares by BlackRock (US)Invesco (US)
CategoryCommodityEquity
StyleGoldLarge Cap Growth
InceptionJan 21, 2005Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 28, 2005 to Oct 14, 2026 (21.7 years).

IAU 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 21.7 years both funds cover.

IAU vs QQQ Performance

ishares Gold Trust (IAU) 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 IAU returned -1.23% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, IAU is down 5.51% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.

Over three years, IAU compounded at +28.53% per year against +26.18% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +17.65% and +15.42% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +14.91% annualized vs +10.67%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.3% compared with 17.3% for IAU. 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 -45.1% for IAU and -53.5% 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 0.05. They move largely independently of each other.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IAU charges 0.25% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $25 vs $18 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IAU currently yields 0.00% against 0.42% for QQQ.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of IAU and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

IAUQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IAU or QQQ?

IAU has an expense ratio of 0.25% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IAU or QQQ?

Over the past year IAU returned -1.23% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), IAU annualized +10.67% vs +14.91% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IAU or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.3% annualized versus 17.3% for IAU. Worst drawdown: IAU -45.1% vs QQQ -53.5%.

Should I hold both IAU and QQQ?

IAU and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.05, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, IAU or QQQ?

IAU yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than IAU?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IAU led over 3Y and 5Y, QQQ over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.