JHML vs QQQ
John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, JHML or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. JHML is less concentrated, with 25.2% 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 | JHML | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $1.2B | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.96% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 780 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +12.96% | +19.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.02% | +22.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.26% | +26.18%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.29% | +15.42%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.3%Best | 18.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -36.1% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,072 | $20,484Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 25.2%Best | 46.7% |
| Fund Family | John Hancock Investment Management | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2015 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 30, 2015 to Oct 14, 2026 (11 years).
JHML 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 11 years both funds cover.
JHML vs QQQ Performance
John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) is an ETF from John Hancock Investment Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year JHML returned +17.02% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, JHML is up 12.96% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.
Over three years, JHML compounded at +20.26% per year against +26.18% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +11.29% and +15.42% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +19.89% annualized vs +13.09%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 15.3% for JHML. 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 -36.1% for JHML 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 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JHML charges 0.29% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $18 annually, a gap of $11 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JHML currently yields 0.96% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
39.0% of JHML's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 89.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings JHML also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside JHML. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
87 positions in common, counted across the 773 positions we hold weights for in JHML and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 780 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for JHML (6.6% of the fund), and 654 for JHML that do not appear in QQQ (60.1%).
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 JHML | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 4.22% | 8.33% | 4.11% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.29% | 7.35% | 3.06% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 3.67% | 5.76% | 2.09% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.98% | 4.07% | 1.09% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 5.02% | 3.51% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 2.57% | 3.05% | 0.48% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 2.03% | 3.26% | 1.23% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 1.04% | 4.17% | 3.13% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.70% | 2.53% | 0.83% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 0.81% | 2.85% | 2.04% |
89.7% of QQQ is already inside JHML.
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, JHML or QQQ?
JHML has an expense ratio of 0.29% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $11 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JHML or QQQ?
Over the past year JHML returned +17.02% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), JHML annualized +13.09% vs +19.89% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JHML or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 15.3% for JHML. Worst drawdown: JHML -36.1% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both JHML and QQQ?
JHML and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, 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 JHML and QQQ?
89.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings JHML also owns. 89.7% of QQQ's is in holdings JHML also owns. They hold 87 positions in common, counted across the 773 positions we hold weights for in JHML and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, JHML or QQQ?
JHML yields 0.96% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so JHML currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than JHML?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. JHML is less concentrated, with 25.2% 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.