XLK vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XLK and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 76 for XLK. XLK is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQ ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 47.
What is the main difference between XLK and QQQ?
XLK and QQQ both concentrate in Technology, at 100% and 59% of assets, and 55% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XLK | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 76 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 61.2% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.45% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +30.4% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | +28.8% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +19.4% | +14.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -33.6% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 1.77 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over XLK, 51 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while XLK holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XLK vs QQQ: 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 | XLK | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.18% | XLK |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 76 | 107 | QQQ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 61.2% | 47% | QQQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.45% | 0.43% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -33.6% | -35.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 26.5% | 19.9% | 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 XLK and QQQ 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 Resilience62 vs 72QQQ +10
- Quality73 vs 82QQQ +9
- Momentum27 vs 21XLK +6
- Value31 vs 35QQQ +4
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; XLK 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 -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
QQQ's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and QQQ 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.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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 | XLK | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 76 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 8,649,991 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.1% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.77 | 1.45 | 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
XLK and QQQ share 55.2% of their weighted exposure across 35 common holdings.
39 holdings are unique to XLK, and 67 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
XLK is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 61.2% of the fund, against 46.96% for QQQ (76 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 | XLK | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 14.31% | 8.49% | 8.49% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 12.98% | 7.71% | 7.71% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 9.9% | 5.88% | 5.88% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.11% | 4.89% | 4.11% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 4.23% | 3.64% | 3.64% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.62% | 2.75% | 2.75% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 3.27% | 2.24% | 2.24% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 2.8% | 1.88% | 1.88% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What XLK adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | XLK | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| ORCLORACLE CORP | 1.71% | Not held |
| IBMINTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP | 1.45% | Not held |
| CRMSALESFORCE INC | 1.31% | Not held |
| APHAMPHENOL CORP CL A | 1.3% | Not held |
| ANETARISTA NETWORKS INC | 1.29% | Not held |
| DELLDELL TECHNOLOGIES C | 0.97% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that XLK doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 2.29% | 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.
XLK vs QQQ: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against XLK's 5.55%.
| Dividend metric | XLK | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.55% | 9.99% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.599 | $1.737 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.784 | $2.795 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #89 of 138 | #56 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
3 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 | 47 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QQQ | Value 31 vs 35 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 62 vs 72 |
| 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 XLK and QQQ 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +4
- 47 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +9
- 48 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +6
- 59 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +6
- 61 vs 67
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when QQQ moved ahead of XLK.
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.
XLK and QQQ carry the same 3 signals, so the signals 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 +1.67%, AIQ -1 points).
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).
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.
- 1XLK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2XLK'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
XLK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | XLK | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.5% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 28.8% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.4% | 19.6% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | XLK | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.7 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | XLK | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.77 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XLK and QQQ?
XLK and QQQ both concentrate in Technology, at 100% and 59% of assets, and 55% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XLK and QQQ overlap?
XLK and QQQ share 55.2% of their weighted exposure across 35 common holdings. 39 holdings are unique to XLK, and 67 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, XLK or QQQ?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 76 for XLK.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLK has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.45% for XLK and 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XLK has been more volatile over the past year, at 26.5% annualized against 19.9% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -33.6% for XLK and -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare XLK and QQQ 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.