BDJ vs QQQ

BDJ vs QQQ

Which is better, BDJ or QQQ?

Multi Alternative against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. BDJ is less concentrated, with 25.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns: QQQLess Concentrated: BDJ

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

MetricBDJQQQ
Expense Ratio0.84%0.18%Best
AUM$1.9B$486.1B
Dividend Yield8.22%0.44%
Holdings307107
YTD Return+11.27%+17.33%Best
1Y Return+20.47%+26.50%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+18.40%+24.58%Best
5Y Return (annualized)+9.48%+14.15%Best
Volatility (annualized)17.5%Best18.4%
Max Drawdown-67.3%-53.5%Best
$10,000 over 5 years$15,728$19,381Best
Top 10 Weight25.2%Best46.5%
Fund FamilyBlackRock, Inc. (US)Invesco (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleMulti AlternativeLarge Cap Growth
InceptionAug 26, 2005Mar 10, 1999

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 26, 2005 to Sep 3, 2026 (21 years).

BDJ 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.

BDJ vs QQQ Performance

Blackrock Enhanced Equity Dividend Trust (BDJ) is an ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BDJ returned +20.47% while QQQ returned +26.50%. Year to date, BDJ is up 11.27% versus a gain of 17.33% for QQQ.

Over three years, BDJ compounded at +18.40% per year against +24.58% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +9.48% and +14.15% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +15.11% annualized vs +0.48%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 17.5% for BDJ. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.

The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -67.3% for BDJ and -53.5% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.59. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

BDJ charges 0.84% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $84 vs $18 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BDJ currently yields 8.22% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

BDJ already in QQQ17.6%
QQQ already in BDJ25.1%

17.6% of BDJ's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 25.1% of QQQ's money is in holdings BDJ also owns.

QQQ and BDJ share little of their money.

The two holdings books were reported 127 days apart, BDJ as of Mar 31, 2026 and QQQ as of Aug 5, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

14 positions in common, counted across the 85 positions we hold weights for in BDJ and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 307 and 107.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 82 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for BDJ (72.5% of the fund), and 59 for BDJ that do not appear in QQQ (68.4%).

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 BDJWeight in QQQDifference
MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 372.72%5.76%3.04%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc2.41%4.67%2.26%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C2.09%3.13%1.04%
METAMeta Platform Inc 2.03%2.78%0.75%
TXNTexas Instrument Inc1.65%1.12%0.53%
CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares0.53%2.10%1.57%
INTCIntel Corporation0.30%2.23%1.93%
WDCWestern Digital Corp Company Guar 11/28 31.62%0.79%0.83%
CMCSAComcast Corp-class A Cmcsa1.01%0.39%0.62%
PEPPepsico Inc.0.53%0.83%0.30%

25.1% of QQQ is already inside BDJ.

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

BDJQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, BDJ or QQQ?

BDJ has an expense ratio of 0.84% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, BDJ or QQQ?

Over the past year BDJ returned +20.47% vs +26.50% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), BDJ annualized +0.48% vs +15.11% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, BDJ or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 17.5% for BDJ. Worst drawdown: BDJ -67.3% vs QQQ -53.5%.

Should I hold both BDJ and QQQ?

BDJ and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.59, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

What is the holdings overlap between BDJ and QQQ?

25.1% of QQQ's money is in holdings BDJ also owns. 25.1% of QQQ's is in holdings BDJ also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 85 positions we hold weights for in BDJ and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, BDJ or QQQ?

BDJ yields 8.22% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so BDJ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than BDJ?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. BDJ is less concentrated, with 25.2% 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.