IVV vs QQQX
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Nuveen NASDAQ 100 Dynamic Overwrite Fund
Which is better, IVV or QQQX?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QQQX over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.2%.
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 | IVV | QQQX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.92% |
| AUM | $896.5B | $1.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 8.33% |
| Holdings | 508 | 286 |
| YTD Return | +13.59% | +15.65%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.54% | +22.71%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.46%Best | +20.79% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.28%Best | +9.63% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 20.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -63.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,654Best | $15,836 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.9%Best | 55.2% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Nuveen |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jan 30, 2007 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 26, 2007 to Oct 14, 2026 (19.7 years).
IVV vs QQQX 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 19.7 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QQQX Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Nuveen NASDAQ 100 Dynamic Overwrite Fund (QQQX) is an ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year IVV returned +17.54% while QQQX returned +22.71%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.59% versus a gain of 15.65% for QQQX.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.46% per year against +20.79% for QQQX; over five years the annualized figures are +13.28% and +9.63% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.40% annualized vs +4.54%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.1% compared with 15.4% for IVV. 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 -56.5% for IVV and -63.4% for QQQX. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while QQQX charges 0.92%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $92 annually, a gap of $89 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 8.33% for QQQX.
Holdings Overlap
55.3% of IVV's money is in holdings QQQX also owns. 87.6% of QQQX's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QQQX is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 244 days apart, IVV as of Oct 1, 2026 and QQQX as of Jan 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
114 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 261 in QQQX, against full books of 508 and 286.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 120 positions for QQQX that do not appear in our book for IVV (6.9% of the fund), and 386 for IVV that do not appear in QQQX (44.1%).
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 IVV | Weight in QQQX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 10.24% | 1.80% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.29% | 8.83% | 1.54% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.76% | 7.86% | 2.10% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.68% | 5.03% | 1.35% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.41% | 5.23% | 2.82% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.47% | 4.31% | 1.84% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.42% | 3.71% | 1.29% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.51% | 3.95% | 2.44% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 0.64% | 3.51% | 2.87% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.52% | 2.49% | 0.97% |
87.6% of QQQX is already inside IVV.
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, IVV or QQQX?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QQQX charges 0.92%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $89 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QQQX?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.54% vs +22.71% for QQQX, so QQQX leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +9.40% vs +4.54% for QQQX. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QQQX?
QQQX has been the more volatile fund at 20.1% annualized versus 15.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs QQQX -63.4%.
Should I hold both IVV and QQQX?
IVV and QQQX have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and QQQX?
87.6% of QQQX's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 87.6% of QQQX's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 114 positions in common, counted across the 506 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 261 in QQQX.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QQQX?
IVV yields 1.10% while QQQX yields 8.33%, so QQQX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQX better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, QQQX over 1Y. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.