QQQ vs YMAG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and YMAG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while YMAG is YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 9 for YMAG. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQ ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 50.
What is the main difference between QQQ and YMAG?
QQQ holds 107 positions to YMAG's 9, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QQQ | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 1.34% |
| Holdings | 107 | 9 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 46.98% |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 1,099,245 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | -25.7% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | -21.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 18.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -31.4% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | -2.51 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 38/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over YMAG, 51 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while YMAG holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs YMAG: 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 | YMAG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 1.34% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 9 | QQQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 46.98% | YMAG |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -12.2% | -31.4% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 18.8% | YMAG |
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 YMAG 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 48QQQ +34
- Momentum21 vs 38YMAG +17
- Risk Resilience72 vs 76YMAG +4
1 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality; YMAG 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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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 YMAG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
YMAG (YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience.
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 | YMAG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 1.34% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 9 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 1,099,245 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 18.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -31.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -1.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.16 | 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 YMAG share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 8 holdings are unique to YMAG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What QQQ adds that YMAG doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| 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 YMAG adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | YMAG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| FBYYieldMax Meta Option Income Strategy ETF | 15.46% | Not held |
| APLYYieldMax AAPL Option Income Strategy ETF | 14.56% | Not held |
| TSLYYieldMax Tsla Option Income ETF | 14.44% | Not held |
| MSFOYieldMax MSFT Option Income Strategy ETF | 13.93% | Not held |
| GOOYYieldMax GOOGL Option Income Strategy ETF | 13.7% | Not held |
| AMZYYieldMax Amzn Option Income ETF | 13.65% | 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 YMAG: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout at 9.99% a year over 2020-2025. YMAG began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QQQ | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.795 | $7.438 |
| Peer rank | #56 of 138 | not ranked |
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 3 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 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs -8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | YMAG | Risk Resilience 72 vs 76 |
| 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 YMAG 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 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)
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 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +1
- 51 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 57 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +6
- 65 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when QQQ moved ahead of YMAG.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only YMAG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.28%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: 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 +0.36%, 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.
- 1YMAG closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2YMAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-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 | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | -13.4% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | -21.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | -25.7% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 45.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 15.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | -8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 16.2% |
Risk
YMAG is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | -2.51 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -31.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 18.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and YMAG?
QQQ holds 107 positions to YMAG's 9, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QQQ and YMAG overlap?
QQQ and YMAG share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 102 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 8 holdings are unique to YMAG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or YMAG?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 9 for YMAG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 1.34% for YMAG.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
YMAG, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 46.98% 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 18.8% for YMAG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -12.2% against -31.4% for YMAG.
Compare QQQ and YMAG 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.