BWZ vs QQQ
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. BWZ offers more diversification with 286 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BWZ | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $287M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.09% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 286 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +1.70% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.72% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.46% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -1.08% | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.4% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -37.9% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 15, 2009 | Mar 10, 1999 |
BWZ vs QQQ Performance
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF (BWZ) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BWZ returned +1.72% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, BWZ is up 1.70% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, BWZ compounded at +3.46% per year against +25.96% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are -1.08% and +14.54% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs -0.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 7.4% for BWZ. 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 -37.9% for BWZ and -83.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.42. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BWZ charges 0.35% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $18 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BWZ currently yields 2.09% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
BWZ and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 104 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BWZ or QQQ?
BWZ has an expense ratio of 0.35% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $17 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BWZ or QQQ?
Over the past year BWZ returned +1.72% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), BWZ annualized -0.58% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BWZ or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 7.4% for BWZ. Worst drawdown: BWZ -37.9% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both BWZ and QQQ?
BWZ and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.42, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BWZ and QQQ?
BWZ and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 104 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BWZ or QQQ?
BWZ yields 2.09% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so BWZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.