COPX vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
COPX and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. COPX is Global X - Copper Miners ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 46 for COPX. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQ ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 42.
What is the main difference between COPX and QQQ?
COPX and QQQ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | COPX | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 46 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 49.4% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.44% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +26.4% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | +10.3% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +17.9% | +14.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -42.1% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 44/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Copper Miners ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 24 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Copper Miners ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over COPX, 51 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while COPX holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Copper Miners ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
COPX 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 | COPX | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 46 | 107 | QQQ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 49.4% | 47% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.44% | 0.43% | COPX |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -42.1% | -35.1% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 47.1% | 19.9% | QQQ |
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 COPX 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.
- Risk Resilience44 vs 72QQQ +28
- Quality61 vs 82QQQ +21
- Momentum27 vs 21COPX +6
- Value35 vs 35Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; COPX keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COPX and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
COPX (Global X - Copper Miners ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 30.8% against 15.4%.
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 | COPX | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 46 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.36 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
COPX and QQQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
39 holdings are unique to COPX, and 102 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
COPX is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 49.36% of the fund, against 46.96% for QQQ (46 holdings vs 107). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What COPX adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | COPX | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| HBM.TOHUDBAY MINERALS INC | 5.45% | Not held |
| TECK-B.TOTECK RESOURCES LTD-CLS B | 5.28% | Not held |
| FM.TOFIRST QUANTUM MINERALS LTD | 5.12% | Not held |
| BHP.AXBHP GROUP LTD | 5.02% | Not held |
| GLEN.LGLENCORE PLC | 4.99% | Not held |
| KGH.WAKGHM POLSKA MIEDZ SA | 4.86% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that COPX doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | COPX |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
COPX vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
COPX grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 37.30% a year against QQQ's 9.99%. COPX: The payout jumped 178.9% in 2025, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. COPX: A single payment in an endpoint year was 5.2x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | COPX | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 37.30% | 9.99% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.394 | $1.737 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.922 | $2.795 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #15 of 138 | #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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QQQ | 42 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -10.9% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day -4.6% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 44 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 COPX 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 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 QQQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +9
- 42 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +15
- 42 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +24
- 41 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +7
- 60 vs 67
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when QQQ moved ahead of COPX.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
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.
QQQ 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.43%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1COPX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2COPX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
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
QQQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | COPX | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.8% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 10.3% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | 19.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | COPX | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.9% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.6% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.8% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | COPX | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -17.9% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between COPX and QQQ?
COPX and QQQ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do COPX and QQQ overlap?
COPX and QQQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 39 holdings are unique to COPX, and 102 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, COPX or QQQ?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 46 for COPX.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.65% for COPX.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
COPX, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.44% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
COPX has been more volatile over the past year, at 47.1% annualized against 19.9% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35.1% against -42.1% for COPX.
Compare COPX 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.