QQQ vs SMH: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and SMH are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while SMH is VanEck Semiconductor ETF. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 27 for SMH. SMH is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQ ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 39.
What is the main difference between QQQ and SMH?
QQQ and SMH both concentrate in Technology, at 59% and 100% of assets, and 33% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QQQ | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 107 | 27 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 71.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 0.2% |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 9,343,290 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | +59.9% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | +51.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.6% | +33.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 39.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -24.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -45.3% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 2.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 1.88 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 39/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 15/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 29/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs VanEck Semiconductor ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over SMH, 51 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 points over 30 sessions. QQQ leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and VanEck Semiconductor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs SMH: 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 | SMH | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.35% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 27 | QQQ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 71.6% | QQQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 0.2% | QQQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -45.3% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 39.7% | 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 SMH 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 29QQQ +43
- Quality82 vs 71QQQ +11
- Momentum21 vs 15QQQ +6
- Value35 vs 31QQQ +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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: 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.
QQQ'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 SMH both carry a full feed there.
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 | SMH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 27 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 9,343,290 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 39.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -24.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.28 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 2.38 | 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 SMH share 32.83% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings.
81 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 4 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SMH is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 71.61% of the fund, against 46.96% for QQQ (27 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.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QQQ | SMH | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.49% | 22.43% | 8.49% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | 5.64% | 4.89% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | 5.73% | 3.64% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.75% | 5.9% | 2.75% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 2.24% | 4.34% | 2.24% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 1.65% | 4.29% | 1.65% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 1.6% | 4.23% | 1.6% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 1.04% | 4.25% | 1.04% |
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 SMH doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.11% | Not held |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | Not held |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.92% | Not held |
What SMH adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | SMH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 22.43% | 8.49% |
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co L | 9.77% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.9% | 2.75% |
| ASMLAsml Holding Nv | 5.01% | 0.69% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 4.29% | 1.65% |
| ADIAnalog Devices Inc | 4.26% | 0.78% |
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 SMH: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against SMH's 8.02%. SMH: The 2020 payout was 64.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SMH: The payout jumped 52.6% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | QQQ | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.99% | 8.02% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.737 | $0.751 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.795 | $1.105 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #56 of 138 | #69 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 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 | QQQ | 51 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QQQ | Value 35 vs 31 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 6.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 72 vs 29 |
| 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 SMH 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 12 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 QQQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +12
- 51 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +19
- 57 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +9
- 65 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +11
- 67 vs 56
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SMH
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.89%, 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.
- 1SMH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2SMH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
Split across windows| Metric | QQQ | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -6.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | 17.6% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | 51.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 59.9% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 27.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 22.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 6.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 26.2% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 2.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 1.88 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -18.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 39.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and SMH?
QQQ and SMH both concentrate in Technology, at 59% and 100% of assets, and 33% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QQQ and SMH overlap?
QQQ and SMH share 32.83% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings. 81 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 4 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or SMH?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 27 for SMH.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.35% for SMH.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QQQ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.43% against 0.2% for SMH.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SMH has been more volatile over the past year, at 39.7% 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 -45.3% for SMH.
Compare QQQ and SMH 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.