BCTK vs GQGU
Baron Technology ETF vs GQG US Equity ETF
Which is better, BCTK or GQGU?
BCTK has been ahead.
GQGU has a lower expense ratio. BCTK led over 1Y. GQGU is less concentrated, with 49.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.2%.
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
| Metric | BCTK | GQGU |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.49%Best |
| AUM | - | $506M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.18% | 1.00% |
| Holdings | 80 | 72 |
| YTD Return | +8.19%Best | -2.98% |
| 1Y Return | +10.91%Best | -2.84% |
| Top 10 Weight | 55.2% | 49.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Baron Funds | GQG Partners LLC |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 12, 2025 | Jul 31, 2019 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
BCTK vs GQGU 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.
BCTK vs GQGU Performance
Baron Technology ETF (BCTK) is an ETF from Baron Funds and GQG US Equity ETF (GQGU) is an ETF from GQG Partners LLC. Over the past year BCTK returned +10.91% while GQGU returned -2.84%. Year to date, BCTK is up 8.19% versus a loss of 2.98% for GQGU.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BCTK charges 0.75% per year while GQGU charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $49 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCTK currently yields 0.18% against 1.00% for GQGU.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 38 holdings in BCTK and 33 in GQGU, totalling 99.1% and 95.8% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 38 positions we hold weights for in BCTK and 33 in GQGU, against full books of 80 and 72.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 32 positions for GQGU that do not appear in our book for BCTK (92.4% of the fund), and 32 for BCTK that do not appear in GQGU (84.6%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BCTK and GQGU you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BCTK or GQGU?
BCTK has an expense ratio of 0.75% while GQGU charges 0.49%. GQGU is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BCTK or GQGU?
Over the past year BCTK returned +10.91% vs -2.84% for GQGU, so BCTK leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BCTK or GQGU?
BCTK yields 0.18% while GQGU yields 1.00%, so GQGU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is GQGU better than BCTK?
GQGU has a lower expense ratio. BCTK led over 1Y. GQGU is less concentrated, with 49.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.