CGGR vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGGR and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGGR is Capital Group Growth ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CGGR ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 51.
| Metric | CGGR | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 103 | 107 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.15% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +7.4% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | +5.8% | +16.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -12.2% |
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 45/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Growth ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
CGGR leads
CGGR leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support CGGR, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Capital Group Growth ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CGGR over QQQ, 57 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. CGGR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. CGGR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGGR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. CGGR lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CGGR now leads by 6.
Compare Capital Group Growth ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CGGR vs QQQ: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | CGGR | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.39% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 103 | 107 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.15% | 0.43% | QQQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -15.2% | -12.2% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.4% | 19.9% | CGGR |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CGGR and QQQ against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum45 vs 21CGGR +24
- Quality64 vs 82QQQ +18
- Value51 vs 35CGGR +16
- Risk Resilience75 vs 72Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor CGGR. CGGR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CGGR's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CGGR and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CGGR (Capital Group Growth ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | CGGR | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 103 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,612,121 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.2% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.45 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
CGGR vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout at 9.99% a year over 2020-2025. CGGR began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | CGGR | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.042 | $2.795 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #56 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGGR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CGGR | 57 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CGGR | Value 51 vs 35 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CGGR and QQQ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CGGR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CGGR lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CGGR now leads by 6.
- Today
- CGGR +6
- 57 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- CGGR +3
- 60 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 62 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 59 vs 67
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when QQQ moved ahead of CGGR.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only CGGR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.38%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CGGR leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to CGGR's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CGGR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CGGR | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.2% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | 19.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CGGR | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.2 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 15.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CGGR | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.37 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -15.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.4% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, CGGR or QQQ?
They hold a similar number of positions: 103 for CGGR and 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.39% for CGGR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QQQ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.43% against 0.15% for CGGR.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.9% annualized against 18.4% for CGGR.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -12.2% against -15.2% for CGGR.
Compare CGGR and QQQ with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.