IQM vs QQQ
Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, IQM or QQQ?
Each has led over a different period.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IQM led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QQQ over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IQM is less concentrated, with 43.7% 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 | IQM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $86M | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 83 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +14.99% | +19.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.23% | +22.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +31.88%Best | +26.18% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.66%Best | +15.42% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 28.5% | 20.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -44.9% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,697Best | $20,484 |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.7%Best | 46.7% |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 25, 2020 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 27, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.6 years).
IQM 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 6.6 years both funds cover.
IQM vs QQQ Performance
Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IQM returned +16.23% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, IQM is up 14.99% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.
Over three years, IQM compounded at +31.88% per year against +26.18% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +15.66% and +15.42% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IQM has the edge at +24.28% annualized vs +21.65%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IQM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 28.5% compared with 20.9% 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 -44.9% for IQM 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 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IQM charges 0.50% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $18 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IQM currently yields 0.00% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
42.3% of IQM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 38.9% of QQQ's money is in holdings IQM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
23 positions in common, counted across the 81 positions we hold weights for in IQM and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 83 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 71 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for IQM (57.6% of the fund), and 36 for IQM that do not appear in QQQ (32.9%).
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 IQM | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.92% | 8.33% | 0.41% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.76% | 7.35% | 3.59% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.69% | 4.17% | 1.48% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.90% | 2.53% | 1.37% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.88% | 2.82% | 0.94% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 2.55% | 1.72% | 0.83% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.08% | 3.05% | 1.97% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 2.01% | 1.70% | 0.31% |
| TERTeradyne Inc - Common | 3.03% | 0.26% | 2.77% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 2.04% | 1.06% | 0.98% |
42.3% of IQM is already inside QQQ.
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, IQM or QQQ?
IQM has an expense ratio of 0.50% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IQM or QQQ?
Over the past year IQM returned +16.23% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IQM annualized +24.28% vs +21.65% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IQM or QQQ?
IQM has been the more volatile fund at 28.5% annualized versus 20.9% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: IQM -44.9% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both IQM and QQQ?
IQM and QQQ 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 IQM and QQQ?
42.3% of IQM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 38.9% of QQQ's is in holdings IQM also owns. They hold 23 positions in common, counted across the 81 positions we hold weights for in IQM and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, IQM or QQQ?
IQM yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than IQM?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IQM led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QQQ over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IQM is less concentrated, with 43.7% 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.