QQQ vs ZDEK
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr December
Which is better, QQQ or ZDEK?
Large Cap Growth against Option Writing.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | ZDEK |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.79% |
| AUM | $506.1B | $107M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.42% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 321 | 15 |
| YTD Return | +19.30%Best | +4.72% |
| 1Y Return | +22.47%Best | +6.69% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +26.18% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.42% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.3% | 2.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -22.8% | -3.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $14,387Best | $11,265 |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Option Writing |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Nov 29, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 2, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.9 years).
QQQ vs ZDEK 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 1.9 years both funds cover.
QQQ vs ZDEK Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF - 1 Yr December (ZDEK) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year QQQ returned +22.47% while ZDEK returned +6.69%. Year to date, QQQ is up 19.30% versus a gain of 4.72% for ZDEK.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.3% compared with 2.8% for ZDEK. 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 -22.8% for QQQ and -3.4% for ZDEK. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QQQ charges 0.18% per year while ZDEK charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $79 annually, a gap of $61 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.42% against 0.00% for ZDEK.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QQQ and ZDEK 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 ZDEK?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while ZDEK charges 0.79%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $61 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or ZDEK?
Over the past year QQQ returned +22.47% vs +6.69% for ZDEK, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), QQQ annualized +21.10% vs +6.47% for ZDEK. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or ZDEK?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 19.3% annualized versus 2.8% for ZDEK. Worst drawdown: QQQ -22.8% vs ZDEK -3.4%.
Should I hold both QQQ and ZDEK?
QQQ and ZDEK have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, 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 ZDEK?
QQQ yields 0.42% while ZDEK yields 0.00%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZDEK better than QQQ?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.