CCOR vs QQQ
Core Alternative ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CCOR or QQQ?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CCOR is less concentrated, with 40.6% 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 | CCOR | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.29% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $28M | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.99% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 44 | 107 |
| YTD Return | -0.81% | +15.18%Best |
| 1Y Return | -0.81% | +19.65%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -1.12% | +24.60%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -1.67% | +13.94%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.7%Best | 19.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.0%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $9,192 | $19,204Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 40.6%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Core Alternative Capital | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 23, 2017 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 24, 2017 to Sep 15, 2026 (9.3 years).
CCOR 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.
CCOR vs QQQ Performance
Core Alternative ETF (CCOR) is an ETF from Core Alternative Capital and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CCOR returned -0.81% while QQQ returned +19.65%. Year to date, CCOR is down 0.81% versus a gain of 15.18% for QQQ.
Over three years, CCOR compounded at -1.12% per year against +24.60% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are -1.67% and +13.94% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +19.39% annualized vs +0.99%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.6% compared with 7.7% for CCOR. 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 -23.0% for CCOR 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 -0.05. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CCOR charges 1.29% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $129 vs $18 annually, a gap of $111 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CCOR currently yields 0.99% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
30.3% of CCOR's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 31.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings CCOR also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
10 positions in common, counted across the 37 positions we hold weights for in CCOR and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 44 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 86 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for CCOR (66.2% of the fund), and 26 for CCOR that do not appear in QQQ (73.1%).
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 CCOR | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.95% | 7.27% | 4.32% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.21% | 5.76% | 1.55% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 5.11% | 3.36% | 1.75% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.02% | 4.67% | 1.65% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.75% | 3.45% | 0.70% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 3.03% | 2.41% | 0.62% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.53% | 2.78% | 0.25% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 3.25% | 0.97% | 2.28% |
| PAYXPaychex, Inc. | 2.25% | 0.19% | 2.06% |
| ADBEAdobe Systems | 1.20% | 0.46% | 0.74% |
31.3% of QQQ is already inside CCOR.
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, CCOR or QQQ?
CCOR has an expense ratio of 1.29% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $111 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CCOR or QQQ?
Over the past year CCOR returned -0.81% vs +19.65% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), CCOR annualized +0.99% vs +19.39% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CCOR or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 19.6% annualized versus 7.7% for CCOR. Worst drawdown: CCOR -23.0% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both CCOR and QQQ?
CCOR and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of -0.05, 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 CCOR and QQQ?
31.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings CCOR also owns. 31.3% of QQQ's is in holdings CCOR also owns. They hold 10 positions in common, counted across the 37 positions we hold weights for in CCOR and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, CCOR or QQQ?
CCOR yields 0.99% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CCOR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CCOR?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CCOR is less concentrated, with 40.6% 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.