QQQ vs XYLD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and XYLD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while XYLD is Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF. XYLD is broader by holdings count, with 507 positions versus 107 for QQQ. QQQ 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 XYLD?
XYLD holds 507 positions to QQQ's 107, and 54% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QQQ | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.6% |
| Holdings | 107 | 507 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 38% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 10.24% |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 625,833 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | +4.9% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | +1.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +7.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 7.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -6.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -18.7% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 0.06 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 44/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over XYLD, 51 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while XYLD holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 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 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs XYLD: 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 | XYLD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.6% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 507 | XYLD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 38% | XYLD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 10.24% | XYLD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -18.7% | XYLD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 7.5% | XYLD |
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 XYLD 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.
- Quality82 vs 52QQQ +30
- Momentum21 vs 44XYLD +23
- Risk Resilience72 vs 74Even
- Value35 vs 35Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality; XYLD 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: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 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 XYLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
XYLD (Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF): the counter-case, on momentum.
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 | XYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.6% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 507 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 625,833 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 7.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.47 | 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 XYLD share 54% of their weighted exposure across 87 common holdings.
15 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 417 holdings are unique to XYLD. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.96% of the fund, against 38% for XYLD (107 holdings vs 507). 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 | XYLD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | 7.97% | 7.97% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | 7.36% | 7.36% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | 5.55% | 5.55% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | 3.79% | 3.79% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.11% | 2.99% | 2.99% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.75% | 2.58% | 2.58% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | 2.39% | 2.39% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | 2.15% | 2.15% |
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 XYLD doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | 1.66% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | 1.27% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 2.29% | 0.71% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 2.24% | 0.77% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.88% | 0.67% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp | 1.78% | 0.6% |
What XYLD adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | XYLD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 1.44% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC-CL B | 1.41% | Not held |
| LLYELI LILLY & CO | 1.33% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 1.04% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 0.96% | Not held |
| VVISA INC-CLASS A SHARES | 0.93% | 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 XYLD: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against XYLD's 3.02%.
| Dividend metric | QQQ | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.99% | 3.02% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.737 | $3.681 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.795 | $4.271 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #56 of 138 | #2 of 3 |
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
1 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 | Even | 51 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 72 vs 74 |
| 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 XYLD 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)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +3
- 51 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +11
- 65 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
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
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XYLD
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.47%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, 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 +0.34%, 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.
- 1XYLD closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2XYLD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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 8 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 4.9% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 45.2 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 4.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QQQ | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 0.06 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -1.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 7.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and XYLD?
XYLD holds 507 positions to QQQ's 107, and 54% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QQQ and XYLD overlap?
QQQ and XYLD share 54% of their weighted exposure across 87 common holdings. 15 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 417 holdings are unique to XYLD. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or XYLD?
XYLD holds more positions: 507 versus 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.6% for XYLD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XYLD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.24% 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 7.5% for XYLD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XYLD fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -18.7% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare QQQ and XYLD 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.