AVOS vs QQQ

AVOS vs QQQ

Which is better, AVOS or QQQ?

Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. AVOS is less concentrated, with 45.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQLess Concentrated: AVOS

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

MetricAVOSQQQ
Expense Ratio0.64%0.18%Best
AUM$111M$483.5B
Dividend Yield0.00%0.44%
Holdings180107
YTD Return+10.29%+15.18%Best
1Y Return-+19.65%
3Y Return (annualized)-+24.60%
5Y Return (annualized)-+13.94%
Top 10 Weight45.8%Best46.5%
Fund FamilyAvos Capital Management, LLCInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Growth
InceptionMar 5, 2026Mar 10, 1999

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

AVOS 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.

AVOS vs QQQ Performance

Avos Global Equities ETF (AVOS) is an ETF from Avos Capital Management, LLC and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Year to date, AVOS is up 10.29% versus a gain of 15.18% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

AVOS charges 0.64% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $64 vs $18 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AVOS currently yields 0.00% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

AVOS already in QQQ12.8%
QQQ already in AVOS36.0%

12.8% of AVOS's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 36.0% of QQQ's money is in holdings AVOS also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

24 positions in common, counted across the 238 positions we hold weights for in AVOS and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 180 and 107.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 72 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for AVOS (61.6% of the fund), and 104 for AVOS that do not appear in QQQ (68.9%).

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 AVOSWeight in QQQDifference
AAPLApple, Inc1.96%7.27%5.31%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp1.79%5.76%3.97%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc1.45%4.67%3.22%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A2.01%3.36%1.35%
WMTWalmart, Inc.0.81%2.41%1.60%
LRCXLam Research Corp 3.125 06/15/20600.32%1.69%1.37%
NFLXNetflix, Inc.0.30%1.37%1.07%
KLACKla Corp0.27%1.11%0.84%
LINLinde Plc Ordinary Shares0.37%1.00%0.63%
AMGNAmgen Inc.0.39%0.97%0.58%

36.0% of QQQ is already inside AVOS.

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

AVOSQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, AVOS or QQQ?

AVOS has an expense ratio of 0.64% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $46 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between AVOS and QQQ?

36.0% of QQQ's money is in holdings AVOS also owns. 36.0% of QQQ's is in holdings AVOS also owns. They hold 24 positions in common, counted across the 238 positions we hold weights for in AVOS and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, AVOS or QQQ?

AVOS yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than AVOS?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. AVOS is less concentrated, with 45.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.