QQQ vs USIG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and USIG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while USIG is iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF. USIG is broader by holdings count, with 11,557 positions versus 107 for QQQ. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USIG ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 51.
What is the main difference between QQQ and USIG?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while USIG spreads across 20 sectors with none above 22%.
| Metric | QQQ | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 107 | 11,557 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 0.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 4.96% |
| Average volume | 37,509,603 | 2,134,737 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | -6.6% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | -5.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +0.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 4.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -7.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -21.1% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -2.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | -3.18 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 92/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
USIG leads
USIG leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support USIG, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USIG over QQQ, 58 versus 51 as of Oct 22, 2026. USIG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. USIG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor USIG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. USIG lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USIG now leads by 7.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs USIG: 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 | USIG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.04% | USIG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 11,557 | USIG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 0.7% | USIG |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 4.96% | USIG |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -21.1% | USIG |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 4.6% | USIG |
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 USIG 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 55USIG +34
- Risk Resilience72 vs 92USIG +20
- Quality82 vs 64QQQ +18
- Value35 vs 36Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor USIG. USIG’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 +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
USIG's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and USIG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USIG (iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 5.4%.
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 | USIG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 11,557 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,509,603 | 2,134,737 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 4.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -7.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -2.28 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.17 | 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 USIG share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 11,554 holdings are unique to USIG. 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 0.73% for USIG (107 holdings vs 11,557). 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 USIG doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| 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 USIG adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | USIG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| EAGLE FUNDING LUXCO S. R.L. 144A 5.50% 08/17/2030 | 0.08% | Not held |
| BANK OF AMERICA CORP 3.42% 12/20/2028 | 0.08% | Not held |
| ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES LLC 4.90% 02/01/2046 | 0.08% | Not held |
| CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING L 144A 7.09% 09/01/2038 | 0.08% | Not held |
| T-MOBILE USA INC 3.88% 04/15/2030 | 0.07% | Not held |
| CVS HEALTH CORP 5.05% 03/25/2048 | 0.07% | 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 4 covered evidence groups favor USIG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | USIG | 51 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 36 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs -3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | USIG | Risk Resilience 72 vs 92 |
| 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 USIG 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 7 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (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 USIG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20USIG lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USIG now leads by 7.
- Today
- USIG +7
- 51 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 57 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +15
- 65 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +15
- 67 vs 52
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when USIG 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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.50%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only USIG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.65%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.47%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
USIG 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, AIQ +2 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to USIG's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3USIG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | -5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | -6.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 65.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 31.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | -3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 5.4% |
Risk
USIG is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -2.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | -3.18 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -7.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -6.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 4.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and USIG?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while USIG spreads across 20 sectors with none above 22%.
How much do QQQ and USIG overlap?
QQQ and USIG share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 11,554 holdings are unique to USIG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or USIG?
USIG holds more positions: 11,557 versus 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
USIG has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
USIG, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.96% 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 4.6% for USIG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
USIG fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -21.1% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare QQQ and USIG 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.