CIL vs QQQ
VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. CIL delivered stronger 1-year returns. CIL offers more diversification with 513 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CIL | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.45% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $31M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.51% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 513 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +4.54% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +34.71% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.45% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.56% | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 29.0% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -46.1% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 20, 2015 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CIL vs QQQ Performance
VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) is a ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc. and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CIL returned +34.71% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, CIL is up 4.54% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, CIL compounded at +16.45% per year against +25.96% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +9.56% and +14.54% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs +7.68%. 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 29.0% for CIL. 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 -46.1% for CIL 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 0.33. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CIL charges 0.45% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $45 vs $18 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CIL currently yields 2.51% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CIL and QQQ share 3 holdings out of 603 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.5% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CIL or QQQ?
CIL has an expense ratio of 0.45% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $27 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CIL or QQQ?
Over the past year CIL returned +34.71% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so CIL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), CIL annualized +7.68% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CIL or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 29.0% for CIL. Worst drawdown: CIL -46.1% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CIL and QQQ?
CIL and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.33, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CIL and QQQ?
CIL and QQQ share 3 common holdings with a 0.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 603 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CIL or QQQ?
CIL yields 2.51% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CIL 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.