IUSG vs QQQ
iShares Core S&P US Growth ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, IUSG or QQQ?
Nearly the same fund. IUSG costs less.
IUSG has a lower expense ratio. IUSG led over 3Y, QQQ over 1Y, 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 57.2%.
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 | IUSG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.04%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $34.6B | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.47% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 400 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +15.23% | +19.14%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.26% | +21.45%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +26.41%Best | +26.10% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.55% | +15.25%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.4%Best | 22.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -65.8%Best | -80.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,877 | $20,333Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.2% | 46.7%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jul 24, 2000 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 28, 2000 to Oct 15, 2026 (26.2 years).
IUSG 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 26.2 years both funds cover.
IUSG vs QQQ Performance
iShares Core S&P US Growth ETF (IUSG) 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 IUSG returned +18.26% while QQQ returned +21.45%. Year to date, IUSG is up 15.23% versus a gain of 19.14% for QQQ.
Over three years, IUSG compounded at +26.41% per year against +26.10% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +13.55% and +15.25% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +8.59% annualized vs +7.26%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.4% compared with 17.4% for IUSG. 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 -65.8% for IUSG and -80.5% 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 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IUSG charges 0.04% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $4 vs $18 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IUSG currently yields 0.47% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
70.7% of IUSG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 72.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings IUSG also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside IUSG. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
47 positions in common, counted across the 399 positions we hold weights for in IUSG and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 400 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 47 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for IUSG (24.4% of the fund), and 324 for IUSG that do not appear in QQQ (29.0%).
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 IUSG | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 14.42% | 8.33% | 6.09% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 9.83% | 5.76% | 4.07% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.22% | 7.35% | 1.13% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.20% | 5.02% | 1.82% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.12% | 3.05% | 2.07% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.33% | 4.07% | 0.74% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.13% | 3.26% | 0.87% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 4.11% | 2.85% | 1.26% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.59% | 4.17% | 1.58% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.22% | 2.53% | 1.69% |
72.8% of QQQ is already inside IUSG.
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, IUSG or QQQ?
IUSG has an expense ratio of 0.04% while QQQ charges 0.18%. IUSG is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IUSG or QQQ?
Over the past year IUSG returned +18.26% vs +21.45% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IUSG annualized +7.26% vs +8.59% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IUSG or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 22.4% annualized versus 17.4% for IUSG. Worst drawdown: IUSG -65.8% vs QQQ -80.5%.
Should I hold both IUSG and QQQ?
IUSG 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 IUSG and QQQ?
72.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings IUSG also owns. 72.8% of QQQ's is in holdings IUSG also owns. They hold 47 positions in common, counted across the 399 positions we hold weights for in IUSG and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, IUSG or QQQ?
IUSG yields 0.47% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so IUSG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than IUSG?
IUSG has a lower expense ratio. IUSG led over 3Y, QQQ over 1Y, 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 57.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.