MINT vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MINT and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MINT is PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. MINT is broader by holdings count, with 1,017 positions versus 107 for QQQ. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has MINT ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 51.
What is the main difference between MINT and QQQ?
MINT holds 1,017 positions to QQQ's 107, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | MINT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 1,017 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 12.5% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.09% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 1,768,362 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +0.1% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | +0.2% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +3.8% | +14.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.6% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -2.3% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 0.00 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.39 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
MINT leads
MINT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support MINT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MINT over QQQ, 53 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. MINT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. MINT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MINT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MINT lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MINT now leads by 2.
Compare PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MINT 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 | MINT | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.36% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,017 | 107 | MINT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 12.5% | 47% | MINT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.09% | 0.43% | MINT |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -2.3% | -35.1% | MINT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1.1% | 19.9% | MINT |
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 MINT 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.
- Momentum41 vs 21MINT +20
- Quality63 vs 82QQQ +19
- Value45 vs 35MINT +10
- Risk Resilience66 vs 72QQQ +6
1 of 4 evidence groups favor MINT. MINT’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: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
MINT's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MINT and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MINT (PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 1.2%.
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 | MINT | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,017 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,768,362 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.6% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.39 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.00 | 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
MINT and QQQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
1,012 holdings are unique to MINT, 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 12.53% for MINT (107 holdings vs 1,017). 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 MINT adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | MINT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| US TREASURY N/B 06/31 4.125 4.13% 06/30/2031 | 5.76% | Not held |
| FANNIE MAE FNR 2025 18 FM 4.54% 09/25/2054 | 1% | Not held |
| FREDDIE MAC FHR 5513 MF 4.58% 11/25/2054 | 0.88% | Not held |
| SYNCHRONY BANK SR UNSECURED 08/27 5.625 5.63% 08/23/2027 | 0.79% | Not held |
| AT+T INC SR UNSECURED 08/28 VAR 4.30% 08/10/2028 | 0.74% | Not held |
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC SR UNSECURED 06/28 VAR 4.76% 06/09/2028 | 0.73% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that MINT doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MINT. 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 | 53 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MINT | Value 45 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day 0% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 0% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 66 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 MINT 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 2 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 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 MINT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MINT lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MINT now leads by 2.
- Today
- MINT +2
- 53 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +7
- 50 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 57 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +11
- 56 vs 67
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when QQQ moved ahead of MINT.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only MINT
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.05%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
- 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.
MINT 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 +0.04%, 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).
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 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to MINT's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MINT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MINT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.1% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 0.2% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.1% | 19.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | MINT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18.1 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.2% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | MINT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.39 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -0.6% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.3% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.1% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.1% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between MINT and QQQ?
MINT holds 1,017 positions to QQQ's 107, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do MINT and QQQ overlap?
MINT and QQQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 1,012 holdings are unique to MINT, 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, MINT or QQQ?
MINT holds more positions: 1,017 versus 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.36% for MINT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
MINT, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.09% 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 1.1% for MINT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
MINT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -2.3% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare MINT 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.