NANC vs QQQ
Subversive Congressional Democrats Trading ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, NANC or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.5%.
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 | NANC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.72% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $298M | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.18% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 181 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +13.89% | +19.14%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.02% | +21.45%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.95% | +26.10%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.25% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.5%Best | 17.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.9%Best | -22.8% |
| $10,000 over 3.7 years | $20,456 | $24,081Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 47.5% | 46.7%Best |
| Fund Family | Subversive Capital | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 7, 2023 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 7, 2023 to Oct 15, 2026 (3.7 years).
NANC 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 3.7 years both funds cover.
NANC vs QQQ Performance
Subversive Congressional Democrats Trading ETF (NANC) is an ETF from Subversive Capital and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year NANC returned +16.02% while QQQ returned +21.45%. Year to date, NANC is up 13.89% versus a gain of 19.14% for QQQ.
Over three years, NANC compounded at +23.95% per year against +26.10% for QQQ. Across the full 4-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +26.81% annualized vs +21.34%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 14.5% for NANC. 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 -20.9% for NANC and -22.8% 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
NANC charges 0.72% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $72 vs $18 annually, a gap of $54 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NANC currently yields 0.18% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
58.5% of NANC's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 66.0% of QQQ's money is in holdings NANC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
25 positions in common, counted across the 89 positions we hold weights for in NANC and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 181 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 69 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for NANC (31.2% of the fund), and 62 for NANC that do not appear in QQQ (40.7%).
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 NANC | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.78% | 8.33% | 0.45% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.66% | 5.76% | 0.90% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.41% | 7.35% | 2.94% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.69% | 4.07% | 0.62% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 5.73% | 2.85% | 2.88% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.69% | 5.02% | 2.33% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 4.52% | 1.70% | 2.82% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.73% | 4.17% | 2.44% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 4.59% | 1.13% | 3.46% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.37% | 3.26% | 0.89% |
66.0% of QQQ is already inside NANC.
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, NANC or QQQ?
NANC has an expense ratio of 0.72% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $54 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NANC or QQQ?
Over the past year NANC returned +16.02% vs +21.45% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), NANC annualized +21.34% vs +26.81% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NANC or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 14.5% for NANC. Worst drawdown: NANC -20.9% vs QQQ -22.8%.
Should I hold both NANC and QQQ?
NANC 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 NANC and QQQ?
66.0% of QQQ's money is in holdings NANC also owns. 66.0% of QQQ's is in holdings NANC also owns. They hold 25 positions in common, counted across the 89 positions we hold weights for in NANC and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, NANC or QQQ?
NANC yields 0.18% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than NANC?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.