QQQ vs IVV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and IVV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while IVV is iShares Core S&P 500 ETF. IVV is broader by holdings count, with 507 positions versus 107 for QQQ. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IVV ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 51.
What is the main difference between QQQ and IVV?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while IVV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | QQQ | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 107 | 507 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 38% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 1.09% |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 7,331,107 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | +16.3% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | +12.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.6% | +12.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.90 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 88/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
IVV leads
IVV leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IVV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IVV over QQQ, 62 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. IVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. IVV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IVV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. IVV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IVV now leads by 11.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs IVV: 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 | QQQ | IVV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | IVV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 507 | IVV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 38% | IVV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 1.09% | IVV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -24.5% | IVV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 12.8% | IVV |
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 QQQ and IVV 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.
- Momentum21 vs 64IVV +43
- Risk Resilience72 vs 88IVV +16
- Quality82 vs 77QQQ +5
- Value35 vs 33Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IVV. IVV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
IVV's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and IVV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IVV (iShares Core S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 9%.
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 | QQQ | IVV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 507 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 7,331,107 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.90 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.00 | 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
QQQ and IVV share 54.19% of their weighted exposure across 87 common holdings.
15 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 417 holdings are unique to IVV. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.96% of the fund, against 37.98% for IVV (107 holdings vs 507). 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 | QQQ | IVV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | 8.22% | 8.22% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | 7.03% | 7.03% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | 5.54% | 5.54% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | 3.75% | 3.75% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.11% | 2.94% | 2.94% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.75% | 2.62% | 2.62% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | 2.36% | 2.36% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | 2.18% | 2.18% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QQQ adds that IVV doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | 1.76% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | 1.29% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 2.29% | 0.7% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 2.24% | 0.8% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.88% | 0.66% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp | 1.78% | 0.61% |
What IVV adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | IVV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 1.44% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 1.41% | Not held |
| LLYELI LILLY | 1.35% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 1.03% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 0.98% | Not held |
| VVISA CLASS A | 0.93% | 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.
QQQ vs IVV: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against IVV's 6.35%.
| Dividend metric | QQQ | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.99% | 6.35% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.737 | $5.908 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.795 | $8.040 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #56 of 138 | #80 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 IVV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IVV | 51 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 33 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | IVV | Risk Resilience 72 vs 88 |
| 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 QQQ and IVV 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 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 IVV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IVV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IVV now leads by 11.
- Today
- IVV +11
- 51 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- IVV +5
- 57 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 65 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- IVV +1
- 67 vs 68
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when IVV 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IVV
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.92%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IVV 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.56%, AIQ +4 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 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to IVV's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IVV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
Split across windows| Metric | QQQ | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 16.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QQQ | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 56.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 9% |
Risk
IVV is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and IVV?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while IVV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do QQQ and IVV overlap?
QQQ and IVV share 54.19% of their weighted exposure across 87 common holdings. 15 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 417 holdings are unique to IVV. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or IVV?
IVV holds more positions: 507 versus 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IVV has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IVV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.09% 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 12.8% for IVV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IVV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare QQQ and IVV 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.