IWR vs QQQM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWR and QQQM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWR is iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF, while QQQM is Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF. IWR is broader by holdings count, with 821 positions versus 109 for QQQM. QQQM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWR ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 49.
What is the main difference between IWR and QQQM?
QQQM puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while IWR spreads across 11 sectors with none above 17%.
| Metric | IWR | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 821 | 109 |
| Top-10 concentration | 6.4% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.16% | 0.45% |
| Average volume | 1,670,847 | 3,112,240 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.3% | +19.7% |
| YTD return | +13.8% | +16.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.1% | +14.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 19.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.4% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.2% | -35% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 1.21 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 49/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 31/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF vs Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
IWR leads
IWR leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQM.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support IWR, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWR over QQQM, 61 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. IWR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQM holds the stronger quality profile. IWR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. IWR lead: Reversed — QQQM led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWR now leads by 12.
Compare iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWR vs QQQM: 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 | IWR | QQQM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | QQQM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 821 | 109 | IWR |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 6.4% | 47% | IWR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.16% | 0.45% | IWR |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.2% | -35% | IWR |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.5% | 19.8% | IWR |
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 IWR and QQQM 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.
- Momentum60 vs 31IWR +29
- Value47 vs 35IWR +12
- Risk Resilience84 vs 72IWR +12
- Quality64 vs 68QQQM +4
3 of 4 evidence groups favor IWR. IWR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQM 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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
IWR's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWR and QQQM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWR (iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF): the counter-case, on quality, 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 | IWR | QQQM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 821 | 109 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,670,847 | 3,112,240 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 19.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.4% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.78 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.44 | 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
IWR and QQQM share 5.61% of their weighted exposure across 28 common holdings.
788 holdings are unique to IWR, and 75 holdings are unique to QQQM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QQQM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.98% of the fund, against 6.41% for IWR (109 holdings vs 821). 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 | IWR | QQQM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| DDOGDATADOG INC CLASS A | 0.54% | 0.33% | 0.33% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 0.51% | 0.32% | 0.32% |
| WBDWARNER BROS. DISCOVERY SERIES A | 0.49% | 0.31% | 0.31% |
| FANGDIAMONDBACK ENERGY | 0.28% | 0.26% | 0.26% |
| TERTERADYNE | 0.44% | 0.26% | 0.26% |
| BKRBAKER HUGHES CLASS A | 0.46% | 0.26% | 0.26% |
| FASTFASTENAL | 0.41% | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| ALABASTERA LABS | 0.34% | 0.22% | 0.22% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IWR adds that QQQM doesn’t
| Holding | IWR | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM | 0.86% | Not held |
| SNOWSNOWFLAKE | 0.81% | Not held |
| PSXPHILLIPS 66 | 0.76% | Not held |
| NETCLOUDFLARE CLASS A | 0.72% | Not held |
| HOODROBINHOOD MARKETS CLASS A | 0.65% | Not held |
| HPEHEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE | 0.57% | Not held |
What QQQM adds that IWR doesn’t
| Holding | QQQM | IWR |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
IWR vs QQQM: five-year payout growth
QQQM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 43.59% a year against IWR's 7.23%. QQQM: The payout jumped 217.1% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | IWR | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.23% | 43.59% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.875 | $0.206 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.241 | $1.259 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #76 of 138 | #12 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 IWR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWR | 61 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWR | Value 47 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQM | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | IWR | Risk Resilience 84 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 IWR and QQQM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 IWR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IWR lead: Reversed — QQQM led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWR now leads by 12.
- Today
- IWR +12
- 61 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- IWR +6
- 60 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQM +5
- 55 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- IWR +4
- 65 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when QQQM moved ahead of IWR.
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 / 2 neutral
Only IWR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.10%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQM
- 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.
QQQM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.52%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.03%, 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.
- 1QQQM closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWR's edge.
- 2QQQM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IWR'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
QQQM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IWR | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | 1.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.4% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 13.8% | 16.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.3% | 19.7% |
Technicals
QQQM has the stronger structure| Metric | IWR | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.9 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.2% | 15.4% |
Risk
IWR is the more resilient| Metric | IWR | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 1.21 |
| Max drawdown | -8.4% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.5% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 19.8% |
| 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.
What is the difference between IWR and QQQM?
QQQM puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while IWR spreads across 11 sectors with none above 17%.
How much do IWR and QQQM overlap?
IWR and QQQM share 5.61% of their weighted exposure across 28 common holdings. 788 holdings are unique to IWR, and 75 holdings are unique to QQQM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWR or QQQM?
IWR holds more positions: 821 versus 109 for QQQM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQM has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.18% for IWR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWR, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.16% against 0.45% for QQQM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQM has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.8% annualized against 13.5% for IWR.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWR fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.2% against -35% for QQQM.
Compare IWR and QQQM 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.