BSSX vs QQQ

BSSX vs QQQ

Which is better, BSSX or QQQ?

Municipal Bond against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: TiedHigher Returns: 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

MetricBSSXQQQ
Expense Ratio0.18%Tie0.18%Tie
AUM$140M$483.5B
Dividend Yield3.40%0.44%
Holdings1,526107
YTD Return-2.63%+17.95%Best
1Y Return-0.67%+21.77%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+3.23%+25.63%Best
5Y Return (annualized)-+15.24%
Volatility (annualized)6.8%Best17.3%
Max Drawdown-7.9%Best-22.8%
$10,000 over 3 years$11,001$20,518Best
Fund FamilyInvesco (US)Invesco (US)
CategoryFixed IncomeEquity
StyleMunicipal BondLarge Cap Growth
InceptionSep 20, 2023Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 21, 2023 to Sep 18, 2026 (3 years).

BSSX 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 covers the 3 years both funds cover.

BSSX vs QQQ Performance

Invesco BulletShares 2033 Municipal Bond ETF (BSSX) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BSSX returned -0.67% while QQQ returned +21.77%. Year to date, BSSX is down 2.63% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.

Over three years, BSSX compounded at +3.23% per year against +25.63% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 6.8% for BSSX. 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 -7.9% for BSSX and -22.8% 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 0.57. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

BSSX charges 0.18% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $18 annually. On income, BSSX currently yields 3.40% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

We hold position weights for 471 holdings in BSSX and 102 in QQQ, totalling 33.0% and 99.9% 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 471 positions we hold weights for in BSSX and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 1,526 and 107.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

BSSXQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, BSSX or QQQ?

BSSX has an expense ratio of 0.18% while QQQ charges 0.18%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.

Which performed better, BSSX or QQQ?

Over the past year BSSX returned -0.67% vs +21.77% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, BSSX or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 6.8% for BSSX. Worst drawdown: BSSX -7.9% vs QQQ -22.8%.

Should I hold both BSSX and QQQ?

BSSX and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, 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, BSSX or QQQ?

BSSX yields 3.40% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so BSSX currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than BSSX?

QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.