IYW vs QQQ
iShares US Technology ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, IYW or QQQ?
Nearly the same fund. QQQ costs less.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IYW led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.8%.
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 | IYW | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.37% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $26.4B | $498.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.10% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 153 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +33.84%Best | +21.69% |
| 1Y Return | +35.58%Best | +24.10% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +35.15%Best | +27.05% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +21.33%Best | +16.31% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 24.5% | 22.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -81.9% | -80.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $26,293Best | $21,286 |
| Top 10 Weight | 64.8% | 47.2%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 19, 2000 to Oct 13, 2026 (26.4 years).
IYW 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 26.4 years both funds cover.
IYW vs QQQ Performance
iShares US Technology ETF (IYW) 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 IYW returned +35.58% while QQQ returned +24.10%. Year to date, IYW is up 33.84% versus a gain of 21.69% for QQQ.
Over three years, IYW compounded at +35.15% per year against +27.05% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +21.33% and +16.31% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IYW has the edge at +9.08% annualized vs +8.86%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IYW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 24.5% compared with 22.4% 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 -81.9% for IYW 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IYW charges 0.37% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $37 vs $18 annually, a gap of $19 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IYW currently yields 0.10% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
84.9% of IYW's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 63.4% of QQQ's money is in holdings IYW also owns.
Most of IYW is already inside QQQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
39 positions in common, counted across the 150 positions we hold weights for in IYW and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 153 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 57 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for IYW (34.4% of the fund), and 107 for IYW that do not appear in QQQ (14.7%).
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 IYW | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 13.94% | 8.45% | 5.49% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 13.28% | 7.80% | 5.48% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 10.70% | 5.88% | 4.82% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 5.51% | 3.15% | 2.36% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.31% | 4.85% | 1.54% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 4.46% | 2.93% | 1.53% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.14% | 3.07% | 1.07% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.11% | 3.71% | 0.60% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.04% | 2.74% | 1.30% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 2.30% | 2.28% | 0.02% |
84.9% of IYW 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, IYW or QQQ?
IYW has an expense ratio of 0.37% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $19 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IYW or QQQ?
Over the past year IYW returned +35.58% vs +24.10% for QQQ, so IYW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IYW annualized +9.08% vs +8.86% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IYW or QQQ?
IYW has been the more volatile fund at 24.5% annualized versus 22.4% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: IYW -81.9% vs QQQ -80.5%.
Should I hold both IYW and QQQ?
IYW and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 IYW and QQQ?
84.9% of IYW's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 63.4% of QQQ's is in holdings IYW also owns. They hold 39 positions in common, counted across the 150 positions we hold weights for in IYW and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, IYW or QQQ?
IYW yields 0.10% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than IYW?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IYW led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.