NZAC vs QQQ
State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, NZAC or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
NZAC has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. NZAC is less concentrated, with 28.3% 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 | NZAC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.12%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $197M | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.03% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 673 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +8.20% | +19.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.60% | +22.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.23% | +26.18%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.39% | +15.42%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.7%Best | 18.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.7%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,663 | $20,484Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 28.3%Best | 46.7% |
| Fund Family | State Street Investment Management | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Nov 25, 2014 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 26, 2014 to Oct 14, 2026 (11.9 years).
NZAC 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 11.9 years both funds cover.
NZAC vs QQQ Performance
State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year NZAC returned +11.60% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, NZAC is up 8.20% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.
Over three years, NZAC compounded at +19.23% per year against +26.18% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +9.39% and +15.42% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +17.99% annualized vs +8.74%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.6% compared with 14.7% for NZAC. 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 -33.7% for NZAC 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NZAC charges 0.12% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $12 vs $18 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NZAC currently yields 2.03% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
38.1% of NZAC's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 83.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings NZAC also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside NZAC. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
67 positions in common, counted across the 608 positions we hold weights for in NZAC and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 673 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 29 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for NZAC (13.9% of the fund), and 179 for NZAC that do not appear in QQQ (28.2%).
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 NZAC | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 6.19% | 8.33% | 2.14% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.31% | 7.35% | 2.04% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 3.87% | 5.76% | 1.89% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.51% | 4.07% | 1.56% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.76% | 5.02% | 4.26% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 1.26% | 4.17% | 2.91% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 2.25% | 2.85% | 0.60% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.52% | 3.26% | 1.74% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 1.49% | 3.05% | 1.56% |
| TSLATesla Motors Inc | 1.54% | 2.82% | 1.28% |
83.5% of QQQ is already inside NZAC.
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, NZAC or QQQ?
NZAC has an expense ratio of 0.12% while QQQ charges 0.18%. NZAC is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NZAC or QQQ?
Over the past year NZAC returned +11.60% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), NZAC annualized +8.74% vs +17.99% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NZAC or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.6% annualized versus 14.7% for NZAC. Worst drawdown: NZAC -33.7% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both NZAC and QQQ?
NZAC and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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 NZAC and QQQ?
83.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings NZAC also owns. 83.5% of QQQ's is in holdings NZAC also owns. They hold 67 positions in common, counted across the 608 positions we hold weights for in NZAC and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, NZAC or QQQ?
NZAC yields 2.03% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so NZAC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than NZAC?
NZAC has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. NZAC is less concentrated, with 28.3% 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.