CATH vs QQQ
Global X S&P 500 Catholic Values ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CATH or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. CATH is less concentrated, with 39.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.
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 | CATH | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $1.4B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 446 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +9.18% | +15.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.44% | +19.78%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.38% | +24.58%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.05% | +13.93%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5%Best | 18.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.0%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,889 | $19,195Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 39.4%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Apr 18, 2016 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 19, 2016 to Sep 16, 2026 (10.4 years).
CATH 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 10.4 years both funds cover.
CATH vs QQQ Performance
Global X S&P 500 Catholic Values ETF (CATH) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CATH returned +12.44% while QQQ returned +19.78%. Year to date, CATH is up 9.18% versus a gain of 15.21% for QQQ.
Over three years, CATH compounded at +19.38% per year against +24.58% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +11.05% and +13.93% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +19.85% annualized vs +13.56%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 15.5% for CATH. 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 -34.0% for CATH and -35.1% 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CATH charges 0.29% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $18 annually, a gap of $11 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CATH currently yields 0.75% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
57.1% of CATH's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 89.6% of QQQ's money is in holdings CATH also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside CATH. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
82 positions in common, counted across the 443 positions we hold weights for in CATH and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 446 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 14 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for CATH (7.9% of the fund), and 357 for CATH that do not appear in QQQ (42.6%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CATH | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.43% | 8.44% | 0.01% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.64% | 7.27% | 0.37% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.95% | 5.76% | 0.19% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 4.67% | 0.83% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 3.36% | 0.36% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.69% | 4.43% | 2.74% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.81% | 3.16% | 0.35% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.40% | 3.13% | 0.73% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.94% | 2.78% | 0.84% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.54% | 2.56% | 1.02% |
89.6% of QQQ is already inside CATH.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CATH or QQQ?
CATH has an expense ratio of 0.29% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $11 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CATH or QQQ?
Over the past year CATH returned +12.44% vs +19.78% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), CATH annualized +13.56% vs +19.85% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CATH or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 15.5% for CATH. Worst drawdown: CATH -34.0% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both CATH and QQQ?
CATH and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CATH and QQQ?
89.6% of QQQ's money is in holdings CATH also owns. 89.6% of QQQ's is in holdings CATH also owns. They hold 82 positions in common, counted across the 443 positions we hold weights for in CATH and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, CATH or QQQ?
CATH yields 0.75% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CATH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CATH?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. CATH is less concentrated, with 39.4% 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.