CMCI vs QQQ
VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CMCI or QQQ?
Commodities against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. CMCI led over 1Y and the full window, QQQ over 3Y and 5Y.
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 | CMCI | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.67% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $3M | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 7.63% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 19 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +32.21%Best | +17.95% |
| 1Y Return | +23.92%Best | +21.77% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.92% | +25.63%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.75% | +15.24%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13705943.7% | 17.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | - | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,923 | $20,324Best |
| Fund Family | VanEck | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Commodity | Equity |
| Style | Commodities | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Aug 21, 2023 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 20, 2011 to Sep 18, 2026 (15.4 years).
CMCI 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 15.4 years both funds cover.
CMCI vs QQQ Performance
VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI) is an ETF from VanEck and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CMCI returned +23.92% while QQQ returned +21.77%. Year to date, CMCI is up 32.21% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.
Over three years, CMCI compounded at +8.92% per year against +25.63% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +9.75% and +15.24% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, CMCI has the edge at +29.80% annualized vs +18.03%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CMCI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13705943.7% compared with 17.5% for QQQ. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.06. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CMCI charges 0.67% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $67 vs $18 annually, a gap of $49 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CMCI currently yields 7.63% against 0.44% for QQQ.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CMCI and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CMCI or QQQ?
CMCI has an expense ratio of 0.67% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $49 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CMCI or QQQ?
Over the past year CMCI returned +23.92% vs +21.77% for QQQ, so CMCI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), CMCI annualized +29.80% vs +18.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CMCI or QQQ?
CMCI has been the more volatile fund at 13705943.7% annualized versus 17.5% for QQQ.
Should I hold both CMCI and QQQ?
CMCI and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of -0.06, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, CMCI or QQQ?
CMCI yields 7.63% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CMCI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CMCI?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. CMCI led over 1Y and the full window, QQQ over 3Y and 5Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.