QQQ vs SILJ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and SILJ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while SILJ is Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 70 for SILJ. SILJ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQ ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 48.
What is the main difference between QQQ and SILJ?
QQQ and SILJ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QQQ | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.69% |
| Holdings | 107 | 70 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 60% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 2.19% |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 3,884,853 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | -4% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | -8.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +14.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 59.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -41.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -48.3% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 2.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 0.37 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 29/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 35/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over SILJ, 51 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while SILJ holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs SILJ: 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 | SILJ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.69% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 70 | QQQ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 60% | QQQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 2.19% | SILJ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -48.3% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 59.8% | 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 QQQ and SILJ 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.
- Risk Resilience72 vs 35QQQ +37
- Quality82 vs 70QQQ +12
- Momentum21 vs 29SILJ +8
2 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; SILJ keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Risk Resilience +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and SILJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
SILJ (Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 41.7% against 15.4%.
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 | SILJ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.69% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 70 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 3,884,853 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 59.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -41.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.27 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 2.51 | 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 SILJ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 69 holdings are unique to SILJ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SILJ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 59.97% of the fund, against 46.96% for QQQ (70 holdings vs 107). 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 QQQ adds that SILJ doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What SILJ adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | SILJ | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| HLHecla Mining Co | 10.85% | Not held |
| CDECOEUR MINING INC. | 10.69% | Not held |
| AGFirst Majestic Silver Corp | 10.08% | Not held |
| WPMWheaton Precious Metals Corp | 5.88% | Not held |
| SSRMSSR Mining Inc | 4.74% | Not held |
| BOL.STBoliden AB | 4.05% | 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
2 of 3 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 | 51 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -13.1%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs -15.8% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 72 vs 35 |
| 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 SILJ 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 QQQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +3
- 51 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +12
- 57 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +21
- 65 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +1
- 67 vs 66
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when QQQ moved ahead of SILJ.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.50%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only SILJ
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.63%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.22%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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.
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 +0.55%, 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.
- 1SILJ closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2SILJ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 18 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -3.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -18.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | -17.2% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | -8.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | -4% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 35.4 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -13.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | -15.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 41.7% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 2.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 0.37 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -41.1% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -37.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 59.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -5.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and SILJ?
QQQ and SILJ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QQQ and SILJ overlap?
QQQ and SILJ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 69 holdings are unique to SILJ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or SILJ?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 70 for SILJ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.69% for SILJ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SILJ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.19% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SILJ has been more volatile over the past year, at 59.8% annualized against 19.9% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35.1% against -48.3% for SILJ.
Compare QQQ and SILJ 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.