CCSB vs QQQ
Carbon Collective Short Duration Green Bond ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 103 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CCSB | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.51% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $27M | $455.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.65% | 0.41% | |
| Holdings | 43 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +0.48% | +17.46% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.55% | +26.02% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.07% | +25.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.76% | +15.12% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 47.2% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -63.5% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Carbon Collective Funds | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 11, 2024 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CCSB vs QQQ Performance
Carbon Collective Short Duration Green Bond ETF (CCSB) is a ETF from Carbon Collective Funds and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CCSB returned +1.55% while QQQ returned +26.02%. Year to date, CCSB is up 0.48% versus a gain of 17.46% for QQQ.
Over three years, CCSB compounded at +4.07% per year against +25.51% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +0.76% and +15.12% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.08% annualized vs +4.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CCSB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 47.2% compared with 30.6% for QQQ. 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 -63.5% for CCSB 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 0.27. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CCSB charges 0.51% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $51 vs $18 annually, a gap of $33 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CCSB currently yields 4.65% against 0.41% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CCSB and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 140 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, CCSB or QQQ?
CCSB has an expense ratio of 0.51% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $33 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CCSB or QQQ?
Over the past year CCSB returned +1.55% vs +26.02% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CCSB annualized +4.50% vs +13.08% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CCSB or QQQ?
CCSB has been the more volatile fund at 47.2% annualized versus 30.6% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: CCSB -63.5% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CCSB and QQQ?
CCSB and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.27, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CCSB and QQQ?
CCSB and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 140 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CCSB or QQQ?
CCSB yields 4.65% while QQQ yields 0.41%, so CCSB 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.