QGRW vs QQQ
WisdomTree US Quality Growth Fund vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, QGRW or QQQ?
Nearly the same fund. QQQ costs less.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QGRW led over 3Y and the full window, QQQ over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 72.5%.
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 | QGRW | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.28% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $3.3B | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.07% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 102 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +16.82% | +19.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +20.59% | +22.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +28.02%Best | +26.18% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.42% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.8% | 17.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.4% | -22.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $28,137Best | $26,746 |
| Top 10 Weight | 72.5% | 46.7%Best |
| Fund Family | WisdomTree Investments | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 15, 2022 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 15, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.8 years).
QGRW 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 3.8 years both funds cover.
QGRW vs QQQ Performance
WisdomTree US Quality Growth Fund (QGRW) is an ETF from WisdomTree Investments and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year QGRW returned +20.59% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, QGRW is up 16.82% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.
Over three years, QGRW compounded at +28.02% per year against +26.18% for QQQ. Across the full 4-year window we track, QGRW has the edge at +31.29% annualized vs +29.55%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QGRW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.8% compared with 17.4% 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 -24.4% for QGRW 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 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QGRW charges 0.28% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $28 vs $18 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QGRW currently yields 0.07% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
82.4% of QGRW's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 64.9% of QQQ's money is in holdings QGRW also owns.
Most of QGRW is already inside QQQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
43 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in QGRW and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 102 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 50 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for QGRW (31.4% of the fund), and 55 for QGRW that do not appear in QQQ (17.2%).
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 QGRW | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 14.73% | 8.33% | 6.40% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 12.85% | 7.35% | 5.50% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 10.01% | 5.76% | 4.25% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 10.84% | 3.05% | 7.79% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 7.68% | 4.07% | 3.61% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.77% | 5.02% | 2.25% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.26% | 3.26% | 1.00% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.52% | 4.17% | 1.65% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.82% | 2.53% | 1.29% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.15% | 1.80% | 0.65% |
82.4% of QGRW 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, QGRW or QQQ?
QGRW has an expense ratio of 0.28% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QGRW or QQQ?
Over the past year QGRW returned +20.59% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), QGRW annualized +31.29% vs +29.55% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QGRW or QQQ?
QGRW has been the more volatile fund at 17.8% annualized versus 17.4% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: QGRW -24.4% vs QQQ -22.8%.
Should I hold both QGRW and QQQ?
QGRW and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 QGRW and QQQ?
82.4% of QGRW's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 64.9% of QQQ's is in holdings QGRW also owns. They hold 43 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in QGRW and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, QGRW or QQQ?
QGRW yields 0.07% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than QGRW?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QGRW led over 3Y and the full window, QQQ over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 72.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.