GDXJ vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GDXJ and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GDXJ is VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between GDXJ and QQQ?
GDXJ and QQQ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | GDXJ | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 119 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 42.3% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.46% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 4,812,705 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -1.5% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | -5.2% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +20.8% | +14.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -41.3% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -48.8% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 2.27 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.41 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 32/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 41/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
GDXJ and QQQ are effectively level
GDXJ and QQQ are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate GDXJ and QQQ as of Oct 21, 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 VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GDXJ 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 | GDXJ | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.52% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 119 | 107 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 42.3% | 47% | GDXJ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.46% | 0.43% | GDXJ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -48.8% | -35.1% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 56% | 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 GDXJ 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 Resilience41 vs 72QQQ +31
- Momentum32 vs 21GDXJ +11
- Quality72 vs 82QQQ +10
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +1
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.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GDXJ 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 | GDXJ | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 119 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,812,705 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -41.3% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.27 | 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
GDXJ and QQQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
112 holdings are unique to GDXJ, and 102 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 42.31% for GDXJ (107 holdings vs 119). 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 GDXJ adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | GDXJ | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| EQXEquinox Gold Corp | 6.96% | Not held |
| EVN.AXEvolution Mining Ltd | 6.12% | Not held |
| AGIAlamos Gold Inc | 5.76% | Not held |
| EDV.LEndeavour Mining Plc | 5.15% | Not held |
| CDECoeur Mining Inc | 5.04% | Not held |
| PE&OLES.MXIndustrias Penoles Sab De Cv | 2.75% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that GDXJ doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 51 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -9.9% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day -9.6% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 41 vs 72 |
| 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 3 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 21 – Oct 20QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 51 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 49 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +18
- 47 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- GDXJ +3
- 70 vs 67
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when QQQ moved ahead of GDXJ.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXJ
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.83%)
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.
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 +0.63%, 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).
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 | GDXJ | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.7% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.2% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | -5.2% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.5% | 19.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | GDXJ | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.9% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.6% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.8% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | GDXJ | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.27 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.41 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -41.3% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -31% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between GDXJ and QQQ?
GDXJ and QQQ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do GDXJ and QQQ overlap?
GDXJ and QQQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 112 holdings are unique to GDXJ, 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, GDXJ or QQQ?
They hold a similar number of positions: 119 for GDXJ and 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.52% for GDXJ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
GDXJ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.46% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDXJ has been more volatile over the past year, at 56% 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 -48.8% for GDXJ.
Compare GDXJ 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.