MTUM vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MTUM and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MTUM is iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has MTUM ahead on AIQ Score, 52 versus 48.
What is the main difference between MTUM and QQQ?
MTUM and QQQ have little in common: 33% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | MTUM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 128 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.6% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.73% | 0.47% |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 38,085,843 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +2% | +5.3% |
| YTD return | +1.9% | +6.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.9% | +11.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 21.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -14.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.1% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 1.67 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 0.34 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 23/100 | 16/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 42/100 | 55/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
MTUM leads
MTUM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support MTUM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTUM over QQQ, 52 versus 48 as of Nov 7, 2026. MTUM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. MTUM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MTUM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. MTUM lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTUM now leads by 4.
Compare iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MTUM 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 | MTUM | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.18% | MTUM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 128 | 107 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.6% | 47% | MTUM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.73% | 0.47% | MTUM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.1% | -35.1% | MTUM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.1% | 21.2% | 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 MTUM 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.
- Value72 vs 36MTUM +36
- Quality61 vs 82QQQ +21
- Risk Resilience42 vs 55QQQ +13
- Momentum23 vs 16MTUM +7
2 of 4 evidence groups favor MTUM. MTUM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Value +40
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: MTUM moved ahead of QQQ in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTUM and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, 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 | MTUM | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 128 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 38,085,843 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 21.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -14.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.25 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.67 | 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
MTUM and QQQ share 32.79% of their weighted exposure across 29 common holdings.
96 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 73 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 35.64% for MTUM (107 holdings vs 128). 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 | MTUM | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 5.37% | 4.89% | 4.89% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 5.46% | 3.64% | 3.64% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.62% | 3.11% | 2.62% |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 4.3% | 2.24% | 2.24% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.08% | 2.9% | 2.08% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 3.47% | 1.88% | 1.88% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 2.4% | 1.65% | 1.65% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 2.9% | 1.6% | 1.6% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What MTUM adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | MTUM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.32% | Not held |
| SNDKSANDISK | 3.17% | 1.11% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.62% | Not held |
| STXSEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC | 2.37% | 0.86% |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 2.13% | Not held |
| UNHUNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 2.06% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that MTUM doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | Not held |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.92% | 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.
MTUM vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
MTUM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.14% a year against QQQ's 9.99%. MTUM: The 2020 payout was 27.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. MTUM: The payout jumped 162.8% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | MTUM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 11.14% | 9.99% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.340 | $1.737 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.273 | $2.795 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #50 of 138 | #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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MTUM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MTUM | 52 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MTUM | Value 72 vs 36 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -15.8% vs -9%; vs 200-day -11.5% vs -3.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 42 vs 55 |
| 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 MTUM 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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 MTUM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6MTUM lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTUM now leads by 4.
- Today
- MTUM +4
- 52 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +9
- 42 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +13
- 44 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +13
- 46 vs 59
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Nov 6 when MTUM 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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MTUM
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MTUM 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.85%, AIQ +12 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.4%, 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 Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTUM's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MTUM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
QQQ leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MTUM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.8% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.6% | -10% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.8% | -9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.9% | -6.1% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | 6.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2% | 5.3% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | MTUM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.3 | 30.5 |
| ADX (14) | 36.6 | 33.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.8% | -9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.5% | -3.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | 32% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | MTUM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.67 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 0.34 |
| Max drawdown | -27.5% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -13.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 21.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between MTUM and QQQ?
MTUM and QQQ have little in common: 33% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do MTUM and QQQ overlap?
MTUM and QQQ share 32.79% of their weighted exposure across 29 common holdings. 96 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 73 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, MTUM or QQQ?
They hold a similar number of positions: 128 for MTUM and 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MTUM has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
MTUM, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.73% against 0.47% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MTUM has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.1% annualized against 21.2% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
MTUM fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -32.1% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare MTUM 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.