ARMW vs QQQ

ARMW vs QQQ

Which is better, ARMW or QQQ?

ARMW has been ahead.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. ARMW led over 1Y.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns (1Y): ARMW

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

MetricARMWQQQ
Expense Ratio1.00%0.18%Best
AUM$23M$498.6B
Dividend Yield75.57%0.42%
Holdings5321
YTD Return+101.07%Best+22.67%
1Y Return+26.21%Best+24.33%
3Y Return (annualized)-+29.05%
5Y Return (annualized)-+17.00%
Volatility (annualized)111.1%21.7%Best
Fund FamilyRoundhill InvestmentsInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Growth
InceptionOct 23, 2025Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.

ARMW 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.

ARMW vs QQQ Performance

Roundhill ARM WeeklyPay ETF (ARMW) is an ETF from Roundhill Investments and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year ARMW returned +26.21% while QQQ returned +24.33%. Year to date, ARMW is up 101.07% versus a gain of 22.67% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

ARMW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 111.1% compared with 21.7% for QQQ. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.69. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

ARMW charges 1.00% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $18 annually, a gap of $82 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ARMW currently yields 75.57% against 0.42% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

QQQ already in ARMW0.5%

At least 0.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings ARMW also owns.

Stated as a floor: for ARMW, our book for it covers 28.4% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.

We cannot see either book well enough to say how much of this pair is duplicated.

1 positions in common, counted across the 2 positions we hold weights for in ARMW and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 5 and 321.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in ARMWWeight in QQQDifference
ARMArm Holdings Plc Adr19.95%0.50%19.45%

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of ARMW and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

ARMWQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, ARMW or QQQ?

ARMW has an expense ratio of 1.00% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $82 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, ARMW or QQQ?

Over the past year ARMW returned +26.21% vs +24.33% for QQQ, so ARMW leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, ARMW or QQQ?

ARMW has been the more volatile fund at 111.1% annualized versus 21.7% for QQQ.

Should I hold both ARMW and QQQ?

ARMW and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, ARMW or QQQ?

ARMW yields 75.57% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so ARMW currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than ARMW?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. ARMW led over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.