CLSM vs QQQ
ETC Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate 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 | CLSM | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.82% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $100M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.79% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 5 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +18.01% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +26.06% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.07% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.48% | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.5% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -27.8% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | The Cabana Group, LLC | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 12, 2021 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CLSM vs QQQ Performance
ETC Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) is a ETF from The Cabana Group, LLC and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CLSM returned +26.06% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, CLSM is up 18.01% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, CLSM compounded at +14.07% per year against +25.96% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +3.48% and +14.54% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs +3.74%. 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 12.5% for CLSM. 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 -27.8% for CLSM 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CLSM charges 0.82% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $82 vs $18 annually, a gap of $64 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CLSM currently yields 0.79% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CLSM and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 106 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, CLSM or QQQ?
CLSM has an expense ratio of 0.82% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $64 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CLSM or QQQ?
Over the past year CLSM returned +26.06% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), CLSM annualized +3.74% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CLSM or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 12.5% for CLSM. Worst drawdown: CLSM -27.8% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CLSM and QQQ?
CLSM and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CLSM and QQQ?
CLSM and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 106 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CLSM or QQQ?
CLSM yields 0.79% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CLSM 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.