CGV vs QQQ
Conductor Global Equity Value 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 108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGV | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.25% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $135M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.87% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 90 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +12.23% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.92% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.70% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.4% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -16.6% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Conductor ETFs | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 19, 2016 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CGV vs QQQ Performance
Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) is a ETF from Conductor ETFs and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CGV returned +19.92% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, CGV is up 12.23% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, CGV compounded at +13.70% per year against +25.96% for QQQ. Across the full 4-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs +9.98%. 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 13.4% for CGV. 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 -16.6% for CGV 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 0.41. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGV charges 1.25% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $125 vs $18 annually, a gap of $107 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGV currently yields 4.87% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CGV and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 183 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, CGV or QQQ?
CGV has an expense ratio of 1.25% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $107 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGV or QQQ?
Over the past year CGV returned +19.92% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CGV annualized +9.98% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGV or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 13.4% for CGV. Worst drawdown: CGV -16.6% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CGV and QQQ?
CGV and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.41, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGV and QQQ?
CGV and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 183 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGV or QQQ?
CGV yields 4.87% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CGV 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.