QQQ vs SLYV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and SLYV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while SLYV is State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF. SLYV is broader by holdings count, with 463 positions versus 107 for QQQ. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SLYV ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 48.
What is the main difference between QQQ and SLYV?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while SLYV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
| Metric | QQQ | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 107 | 463 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.47% | 1.97% |
| Average volume | 38,085,843 | 200,936 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.3% | +16.6% |
| YTD return | +6.8% | +14.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.2% | +5.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 16% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -28.7% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | 1.50 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 48/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 16/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 55/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
SLYV leads
SLYV leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support SLYV, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLYV over QQQ, 57 versus 48 as of Nov 7, 2026. SLYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. SLYV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SLYV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. SLYV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs SLYV: 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 | SLYV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | SLYV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 463 | SLYV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 9% | SLYV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.47% | 1.97% | SLYV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -28.7% | SLYV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 21.2% | 16% | SLYV |
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 SLYV 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.
- Momentum16 vs 53SLYV +37
- Quality82 vs 50QQQ +32
- Value36 vs 59SLYV +23
- Risk Resilience55 vs 75SLYV +20
4 of 4 evidence groups favor SLYV. SLYV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; 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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SLYV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and SLYV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SLYV (State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 32% against 19.4%.
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 | SLYV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 463 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 38,085,843 | 200,936 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 16% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.79 | 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 SLYV share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 461 holdings are unique to SLYV. 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 8.99% for SLYV (107 holdings vs 463). 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 SLYV doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SLYV adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | SLYV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| MTCHMATCH GROUP INC | 1.08% | Not held |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL INC A | 1.07% | Not held |
| PAYCPAYCOM SOFTWARE INC | 0.99% | Not held |
| SMSM ENERGY CO | 0.96% | Not held |
| KMXCARMAX INC | 0.95% | Not held |
| EMNEASTMAN CHEMICAL CO | 0.86% | 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 SLYV: five-year payout growth
SLYV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 14.63% a year against QQQ's 9.99%. SLYV: The 2020 payout was 15.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SLYV: The payout jumped 77.4% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | QQQ | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.99% | 14.63% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.737 | $0.929 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.795 | $1.839 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #56 of 138 | #39 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 SLYV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SLYV | 48 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SLYV | Value 36 vs 59 |
| Technicals | SLYV | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -1.3%; vs 200-day -3.2% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | SLYV | Risk Resilience 55 vs 75 |
| 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 SLYV 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 moderate at 9 points.
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 SLYV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6SLYV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLYV +9
- 48 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- SLYV +13
- 51 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +1
- 59 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when SLYV 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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SLYV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
QQQ is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.43%, 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLYV's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SLYV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
SLYV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10% | 0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9% | -5.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.1% | 0.9% |
| Year to date | 6.8% | 14.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.3% | 16.6% |
Technicals
SLYV has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.5 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 33.1 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.2% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32% | 19.4% |
Risk
SLYV is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | 1.5 |
| Max drawdown | -14.8% | -9.4% |
| Current drawdown | -13.6% | -7.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and SLYV?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while SLYV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
How much do QQQ and SLYV overlap?
QQQ and SLYV share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 461 holdings are unique to SLYV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or SLYV?
SLYV holds more positions: 463 versus 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SLYV has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SLYV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.97% 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 16% for SLYV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SLYV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.7% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare QQQ and SLYV 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.