DIV vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DIV and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DIV is Global X - SuperDividend U.S. ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 52 for DIV. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DIV ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 51.
What is the main difference between DIV and QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while DIV spreads across 10 sectors with none above 22%.
| Metric | DIV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.45% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 52 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 26% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 6.65% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 205,432 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.4% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | +9.8% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.3% | +14.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.6% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -21.1% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 0.12 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 47/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 67/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - SuperDividend U.S. ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
DIV leads
DIV leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support DIV, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Global X - SuperDividend U.S. ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DIV over QQQ, 54 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. DIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. DIV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. DIV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIV now leads by 3.
Compare Global X - SuperDividend U.S. ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DIV 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 | DIV | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.45% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 52 | 107 | QQQ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 26% | 47% | DIV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 6.65% | 0.43% | DIV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -21.1% | -35.1% | DIV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.3% | 19.9% | DIV |
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 DIV 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.
- Quality45 vs 82QQQ +37
- Value64 vs 35DIV +29
- Momentum47 vs 21DIV +26
- Risk Resilience67 vs 72QQQ +5
1 of 4 evidence groups favor DIV. DIV’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; 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 +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
DIV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DIV and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DIV (Global X - SuperDividend U.S. ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals.
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 | DIV | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.45% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 52 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 205,432 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.6% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.12 | 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
DIV and QQQ share 0.13% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
49 holdings are unique to DIV, and 101 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.96% of the fund, against 26.03% for DIV (107 holdings vs 52). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | DIV | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHCKRAFT HEINZ CO/THE | 2.07% | 0.13% | 0.13% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What DIV adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | DIV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| TENTSAKOS ENERGY NAVIGATION LTD | 3.65% | Not held |
| TIGOMILLICOM INTL CELLULAR S.A. | 2.87% | Not held |
| CBLCBL & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES | 2.85% | Not held |
| SFLSFL CORP LTD | 2.57% | Not held |
| PAAPLAINS ALL AMER PIPELINE LP | 2.47% | Not held |
| UANCVR PARTNERS LP | 2.45% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that DIV doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | DIV |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
DIV vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against DIV's -1.37%. DIV: The 2020 payout was 25.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | DIV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -1.37% | 9.99% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.354 | $1.737 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.264 | $2.795 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #32 of 33 | #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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 54 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | DIV | Value 64 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -2.2% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day -0.8% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 67 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 DIV 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 DIV.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20DIV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIV now leads by 3.
- Today
- DIV +3
- 54 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +4
- 53 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +15
- 50 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 54 vs 62
The lead changed hands 14 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when QQQ moved ahead of DIV.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only DIV
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.99%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
QQQ is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.21%, AIQ +2 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 Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to DIV's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3DIV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | DIV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.6% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.4% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 9.8% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.4% | 19.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | DIV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.3 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.8 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.2% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.8% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.9% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | DIV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.12 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -6.6% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.4% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between DIV and QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while DIV spreads across 10 sectors with none above 22%.
How much do DIV and QQQ overlap?
DIV and QQQ share 0.13% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 49 holdings are unique to DIV, and 101 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, DIV or QQQ?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 52 for DIV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.45% for DIV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DIV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 6.65% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.9% annualized against 10.3% for DIV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DIV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -21.1% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare DIV 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.