QQQ vs WOOD
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs iShares Global Timber & Forestry ETF
Which is better, QQQ or WOOD?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.9%.
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 | QQQ | WOOD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $506.1B | $257M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.42% | 2.51% |
| Holdings | 321 | 42 |
| YTD Return | +19.30%Best | -7.85% |
| 1Y Return | +22.47%Best | -2.25% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +26.18%Best | -1.96% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.42%Best | -3.52% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.6%Best | 22.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -47.0%Best | -63.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,484Best | $8,360 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.7%Best | 53.9% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Jun 24, 2008 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 25, 2008 to Oct 14, 2026 (18.3 years).
QQQ vs WOOD 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
QQQ vs WOOD Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Global Timber & Forestry ETF (WOOD) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year QQQ returned +22.47% while WOOD returned -2.25%. Year to date, QQQ is up 19.30% versus a loss of 7.85% for WOOD.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +26.18% per year against -1.96% for WOOD; over five years the annualized figures are +15.42% and -3.52% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +16.29% annualized vs +2.28%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
WOOD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.5% compared with 18.6% 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 -47.0% for QQQ and -63.8% for WOOD. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.67. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QQQ charges 0.18% per year while WOOD charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $39 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.42% against 2.51% for WOOD.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 101 holdings in QQQ and 25 in WOOD, totalling 99.6% and 99.5% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 25 in WOOD, against full books of 321 and 42.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for WOOD that do not appear in our book for QQQ (20.4% of the fund), and 93 for QQQ that do not appear in WOOD (96.3%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QQQ and WOOD you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, QQQ or WOOD?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while WOOD charges 0.39%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or WOOD?
Over the past year QQQ returned +22.47% vs -2.25% for WOOD, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), QQQ annualized +16.29% vs +2.28% for WOOD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or WOOD?
WOOD has been the more volatile fund at 22.5% annualized versus 18.6% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: QQQ -47.0% vs WOOD -63.8%.
Should I hold both QQQ and WOOD?
QQQ and WOOD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.67, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or WOOD?
QQQ yields 0.42% while WOOD yields 2.51%, so WOOD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is WOOD better than QQQ?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.