ACGO vs QQQ

ACGO vs QQQ

Which is better, ACGO or QQQ?

QQQ costs less.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQLess Concentrated: QQQ

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricACGOQQQ
Expense Ratio0.42%0.18%Best
AUM$29M$498.6B
Dividend Yield0.00%0.42%
Holdings68321
YTD Return+0.27%+22.67%Best
1Y Return-+24.33%
3Y Return (annualized)-+29.05%
5Y Return (annualized)-+17.00%
Top 10 Weight56.5%47.2%Best
Fund FamilyHartford FundsInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Growth
InceptionJun 2, 2026Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

ACGO vs QQQ growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

ACGO vs QQQ Performance

Hartford Alpha Capture Growth ETF (ACGO) is an ETF from Hartford Funds and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Year to date, ACGO is up 0.27% versus a gain of 22.67% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

ACGO charges 0.42% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $42 vs $18 annually, a gap of $24 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACGO currently yields 0.00% against 0.42% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

ACGO already in QQQ71.7%
QQQ already in ACGO63.2%

71.7% of ACGO's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 63.2% of QQQ's money is in holdings ACGO also owns.

Most of ACGO is already inside QQQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

26 positions in common, counted across the 66 positions we hold weights for in ACGO and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 68 and 321.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 70 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for ACGO (34.6% of the fund), and 37 for ACGO that do not appear in QQQ (26.3%).

Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in ACGOWeight in QQQDifference
NVDANvidia Corp13.85%8.45%5.40%
AAPLApple, Inc7.67%7.80%0.13%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C9.03%2.93%6.10%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp5.27%5.88%0.61%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.3.21%4.85%1.64%
AVGOBroadcom Inc4.77%2.74%2.03%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc2.68%4.41%1.73%
METAMeta Platforms Inc3.39%3.07%0.32%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A3.12%3.15%0.03%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc2.32%3.71%1.39%

71.7% of ACGO is already inside QQQ.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

ACGOQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, ACGO or QQQ?

ACGO has an expense ratio of 0.42% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $24 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between ACGO and QQQ?

71.7% of ACGO's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 63.2% of QQQ's is in holdings ACGO also owns. They hold 26 positions in common, counted across the 66 positions we hold weights for in ACGO and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, ACGO or QQQ?

ACGO yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than ACGO?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.