DUHP vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DUHP and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DUHP is U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. DUHP is broader by holdings count, with 161 positions versus 107 for QQQ. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between DUHP and QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while DUHP spreads across 10 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | DUHP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 161 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 43% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.84% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 799,349 | 36,957,929 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +12% | +17.6% |
| YTD return | +12.4% | +18.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 20% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -12.2% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 0.90 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 66/100 | 46/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 85/100 | 69/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
DUHP and QQQ are effectively level
DUHP and QQQ are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate DUHP and QQQ as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DUHP 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 | DUHP | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.24% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 161 | 107 | DUHP |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 43% | 47% | DUHP |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.84% | 0.43% | DUHP |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.2% | -12.2% | DUHP |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.8% | 20% | DUHP |
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 DUHP 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.
- Quality58 vs 82QQQ +24
- Momentum66 vs 46DUHP +20
- Risk Resilience85 vs 69DUHP +16
- Value35 vs 35Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
DUHP's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DUHP and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
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 | DUHP | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 161 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 799,349 | 36,957,929 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 20% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.59 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 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
DUHP and QQQ share 41.09% of their weighted exposure across 35 common holdings.
125 holdings are unique to DUHP, and 67 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.96% of the fund, against 43% for DUHP (107 holdings vs 161). 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 | DUHP | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.79% | 8.49% | 7.79% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.3% | 7.71% | 7.3% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.01% | 5.88% | 5.01% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 3.78% | 4.89% | 3.78% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 3.69% | 3.07% | 3.07% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH CORP | 2.15% | 1.65% | 1.65% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp | 1.21% | 1.78% | 1.21% |
| TXNTEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC. | 1.18% | 1.04% | 1.04% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What DUHP adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | DUHP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| LLYELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 4.4% | Not held |
| VVISA INC | 4.22% | Not held |
| MAMASTERCARD INC - A | 2.37% | Not held |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC. | 2.3% | Not held |
| HDHOME DEPOT INC | 1.86% | Not held |
| ORCLORACLE CORP. | 1.71% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that DUHP doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.11% | Not held |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.92% | Not held |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.75% | 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.
DUHP vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout at 9.99% a year over 2020-2025. DUHP began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | DUHP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.388 | $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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 35 |
| Technicals | DUHP | Price vs 50-day 0.8% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 5.8% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | DUHP | Risk Resilience 85 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- DUHP +1
- 51 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 59 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when QQQ moved ahead of DUHP.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DUHP
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.84%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.27%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.47%, AIQ +5 points).
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 | DUHP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.5% | 6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 12.4% | 18.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12% | 17.6% |
Technicals
DUHP has the stronger structure| Metric | DUHP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.1 | 39.4 |
| ADX (14) | 7.8 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.8% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.8% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.3% | 19.5% |
Risk
DUHP is the more resilient| Metric | DUHP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.3% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between DUHP and QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while DUHP spreads across 10 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do DUHP and QQQ overlap?
DUHP and QQQ share 41.09% of their weighted exposure across 35 common holdings. 125 holdings are unique to DUHP, and 67 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, DUHP or QQQ?
DUHP holds more positions: 161 versus 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.24% for DUHP.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DUHP, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.84% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 20% annualized against 11.8% for DUHP.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DUHP fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.2% against -12.2% for QQQ.
Compare DUHP 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.