EFAD vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
EFAD and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. EFAD is ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 77 for EFAD. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has EFAD ahead on AIQ Score, 56 versus 51.
| Metric | EFAD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 77 | 107 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.48% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 3,126 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +6.8% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | +8.2% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +1.7% | +14.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.3% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -34% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
EFAD leads
EFAD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support EFAD, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EFAD over QQQ, 56 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. EFAD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. EFAD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EFAD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. EFAD lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 19 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EFAD now leads by 5.
Compare ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
EFAD 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 | EFAD | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.5% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 77 | 107 | QQQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.48% | 0.43% | EFAD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -34% | -35.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.8% | 19.9% | EFAD |
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 EFAD 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.
- Momentum79 vs 21EFAD +58
- Quality30 vs 82QQQ +52
- Value50 vs 35EFAD +15
- Risk Resilience81 vs 72EFAD +9
3 of 4 evidence groups favor EFAD. EFAD’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: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
EFAD's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EFAD and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EFAD (ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers 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 | EFAD | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 77 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,126 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.3% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.73 | 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.
EFAD vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
EFAD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 12.67% a year against QQQ's 9.99%. EFAD: The 2020 payout was 21.9% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. EFAD: The payout jumped 110.0% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | EFAD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 12.67% | 9.99% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.651 | $1.737 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.182 | $2.795 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #3 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EFAD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EFAD | 56 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | EFAD | Value 50 vs 35 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 5.1% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | EFAD | Risk Resilience 81 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 EFAD 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 5 points. (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 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 EFAD.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20EFAD lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 19 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EFAD now leads by 5.
- Today
- EFAD +5
- 56 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 55 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +19
- 46 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +10
- 52 vs 62
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when EFAD moved ahead of QQQ.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only EFAD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.76%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- 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.
EFAD 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 +0.1%, 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to EFAD's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EFAD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 | EFAD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.2% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.5% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 8.2% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.8% | 19.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EFAD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.2 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18.2 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.1% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.5% | 15.4% |
Risk
EFAD is the more resilient| Metric | EFAD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -10.3% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, EFAD or QQQ?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 77 for EFAD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.5% for EFAD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
EFAD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.48% 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 13.8% for EFAD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -34% for EFAD and -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare EFAD 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.