QQQ vs QUAL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and QUAL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while QUAL is iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF. QUAL has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QUAL ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 48.
What is the main difference between QQQ and QUAL?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while QUAL spreads across 11 sectors with none above 37%.
| Metric | QQQ | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 107 | 121 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 44.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.47% | 0.86% |
| Average volume | 38,085,843 | 4,268,662 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.3% | +12.3% |
| YTD return | +6.8% | +10.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.2% | +9.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 12.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -28.2% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | 1.11 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 48/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 16/100 | 37/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 55/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
QUAL leads
QUAL leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support QUAL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QUAL over QQQ, 61 versus 48 as of Nov 7, 2026. QUAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. QUAL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QUAL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QUAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs QUAL: 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 | QUAL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | QUAL |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 121 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 44.5% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.47% | 0.86% | QUAL |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -28.2% | QUAL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 21.2% | 12.6% | QUAL |
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 QUAL 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.
- Value36 vs 72QUAL +36
- Risk Resilience55 vs 78QUAL +23
- Momentum16 vs 37QUAL +21
- Quality82 vs 63QQQ +19
4 of 4 evidence groups favor QUAL. QUAL’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; 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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +38
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QUAL's lead widened by 10 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and QUAL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QUAL (iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 32% against 16.6%.
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 | QUAL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 121 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 38,085,843 | 4,268,662 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 12.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.76 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.87 | 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 QUAL share 41.04% of their weighted exposure across 34 common holdings.
68 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 84 holdings are unique to QUAL. 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 44.53% for QUAL (107 holdings vs 121). 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 | QUAL | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | 6.83% | 6.83% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | 6.56% | 6.56% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 5.88% | 7.62% | 5.88% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 3.07% | 4.36% | 3.07% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.11% | 1.92% | 1.92% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 1.65% | 3.79% | 1.65% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 1.6% | 2.88% | 1.6% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | 1.51% | 1.51% |
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 QUAL doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | Not held |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.92% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.75% | Not held |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 2.29% | 0.94% |
What QUAL adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | QUAL | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 3.79% | 1.65% |
| LLYELI LILLY | 3.61% | Not held |
| TJXTJX | 3.21% | Not held |
| VVISA CLASS A | 3.2% | Not held |
| KLACKLA | 2.49% | 1.03% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.32% | 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 QUAL: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against QUAL's 2.85%.
| Dividend metric | QQQ | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.99% | 2.85% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.737 | $1.615 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.795 | $1.859 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #56 of 138 | #117 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QUAL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QUAL | 48 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QUAL | Value 36 vs 72 |
| Technicals | QUAL | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day -3.2% vs 3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | QUAL | Risk Resilience 55 vs 78 |
| 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 QUAL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 QUAL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6QUAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QUAL +13
- 48 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +1
- 51 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QUAL +3
- 57 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 59 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when QUAL 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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QUAL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.16%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QUAL 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 +1.4%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, AIQ +11 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 QUAL's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QUAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
QUAL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10% | -3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.1% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 6.8% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.3% | 12.3% |
Technicals
QUAL has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.5 | 37.1 |
| ADX (14) | 33.1 | 16.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.2% | 3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32% | 16.6% |
Risk
QUAL is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | 1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -14.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -13.6% | -3.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 12.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and QUAL?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while QUAL spreads across 11 sectors with none above 37%.
How much do QQQ and QUAL overlap?
QQQ and QUAL share 41.04% of their weighted exposure across 34 common holdings. 68 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 84 holdings are unique to QUAL. 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 QUAL?
They hold a similar number of positions: 107 for QQQ and 121 for QUAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QUAL has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QUAL, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.86% against 0.47% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 21.2% annualized against 12.6% for QUAL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QUAL fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.2% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare QQQ and QUAL 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.