QQQ vs IWF ETF Comparison
Compare QQQ and IWF across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQ and IWF?
QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while IWF is iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF. QQQ is tied to Equity; IWF is tied to Equity. IWF is broader by holdings count, with 366 positions versus 102 for QQQ. IWF is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | QQQ | IWF | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.18% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $489.6B | $124.4B | Fund |
| Holdings | 102 | 366 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 76% | 77.8% | Fund |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 1,994,229 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +26.9% | +11.8% | Performance |
| YTD return | +16.8% | +4.3% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 17.8% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -16.4% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.43 | 1.30 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 0.44 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.60 | 0.68 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 6/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 55/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 76/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over IWF, 58 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while IWF holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare QQQ and IWF 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.
- Quality30%83 vs 71QQQ +12
- Momentum25%51 vs 55IWF +4
- Risk Resilience15%74 vs 76Even
- Value30%30 vs 31Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality; IWF keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and IWF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF): the counter-case, on momentum.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
QQQQQQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
IWFIWF on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | IWF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $489.6B | $124.4B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 103 | 366 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 1,994,229 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 17.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -16.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 0.44 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.43 | 1.30 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QQQ and IWF share 87.35% of their weighted exposure across 61 common holdings.
IWF is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 77.85% of the fund, against 76.03% for QQQ (366 holdings vs 102). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
41 holdings are unique to QQQ and 305 to IWF. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QQQ | IWF | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE | 15.31% | 15.47% | 15.31% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 12.04% | 11.31% | 11.31% |
| NVDANVIDIA | 8.78% | 15.41% | 8.78% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 9.47% | 6.39% | 6.39% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 6.52% | 4.54% | 4.54% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 3.17% | 5.93% | 3.17% |
| TSLATESLA INC | 2.99% | 3.16% | 2.99% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 2.94% | 4.79% | 2.94% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or IWF?
IWF currently has more reported holdings, with 366 positions versus 102.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The current fund profile does not show a lower-cost winner.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
QQQ currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 58 to 56.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ. 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 | 58 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 30 vs 31 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day 9.2% vs 4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 76 |
| 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 IWF 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 QQQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +2
- 58 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 59 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +6
- 67 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when QQQ moved ahead of IWF.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.20%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.89%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
QQQ 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 +0.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.02%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1IWF closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2IWF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
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 | QQQ | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.4% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.1% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.9% | 9% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | 4.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.9% | 11.8% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.3 | 43 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 13.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.2% | 4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.5% | 14.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QQQ | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 1.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.6 | 0.68 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -4.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 17.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or IWF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against IWF's 56. The edge comes from quality. IWF is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is QQQ or IWF the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over IWF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QQQ leads Quality by 12 points; IWF leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QQQ or IWF?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, QQQ or IWF?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, QQQ or IWF?
IWF on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, QQQ or IWF?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is QQQ more profitable than IWF?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over IWF getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when QQQ moved ahead of IWF.
What would change the QQQ vs IWF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IWF closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; IWF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about QQQ and IWF?
QQQ: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWF: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on QQQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IWF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QQQ and IWF with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.