CFO vs QQQ
VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CFO 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. CFO is less concentrated, with 3.8% 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 | CFO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $421M | $486.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 502 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +11.29% | +17.33%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.11% | +26.50%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.83% | +24.58%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.80% | +14.15%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.3%Best | 18.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.4%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,050 | $19,381Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 3.8%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jul 1, 2014 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 2, 2014 to Sep 3, 2026 (12.2 years).
CFO 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 12.2 years both funds cover.
CFO vs QQQ Performance
VictoryShares US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted ETF (CFO) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc. and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CFO returned +14.11% while QQQ returned +26.50%. Year to date, CFO is up 11.29% versus a gain of 17.33% for QQQ.
Over three years, CFO compounded at +11.83% per year against +24.58% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +3.80% and +14.15% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.38% annualized vs +8.17%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 12.3% for CFO. 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 -24.4% for CFO 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 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CFO 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, CFO currently yields 1.22% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
15.9% of CFO's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 86.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings CFO also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside CFO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
80 positions in common, counted across the 501 positions we hold weights for in CFO and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 502 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 16 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for CFO (10.8% of the fund), and 415 for CFO that do not appear in QQQ (82.9%).
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 CFO | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 0.20% | 8.44% | 8.24% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.28% | 7.27% | 6.99% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 0.29% | 5.76% | 5.47% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.23% | 4.67% | 4.44% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.20% | 4.43% | 4.23% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.21% | 3.45% | 3.24% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 0.23% | 3.36% | 3.13% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.16% | 3.16% | 3.00% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 0.15% | 2.78% | 2.63% |
| TSLATesla Motors Inc | 0.10% | 2.56% | 2.46% |
86.7% of QQQ is already inside CFO.
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, CFO or QQQ?
CFO has an expense ratio of 0.35% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CFO or QQQ?
Over the past year CFO returned +14.11% vs +26.50% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), CFO annualized +8.17% vs +18.38% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CFO or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 12.3% for CFO. Worst drawdown: CFO -24.4% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both CFO and QQQ?
CFO and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, 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 CFO and QQQ?
86.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings CFO also owns. 86.7% of QQQ's is in holdings CFO also owns. They hold 80 positions in common, counted across the 501 positions we hold weights for in CFO and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, CFO or QQQ?
CFO yields 1.22% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CFO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CFO?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CFO is less concentrated, with 3.8% 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.