CRBN vs QQQ
iShares Low Carbon Optimized MSCI ACWI ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. CRBN offers more diversification with 1,123 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CRBN | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $1.2B | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.04% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 1,123 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +12.35% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.86% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.59% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.03% | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3659.8% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -33.1% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Dec 8, 2014 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CRBN vs QQQ Performance
iShares Low Carbon Optimized MSCI ACWI ETF (CRBN) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CRBN returned +21.86% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, CRBN is up 12.35% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, CRBN compounded at +21.59% per year against +25.96% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +11.03% and +14.54% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, CRBN has the edge at +57.98% annualized vs +13.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CRBN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 3659.8% compared with 30.6% for QQQ. 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 -33.1% for CRBN 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 -0.06. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CRBN charges 0.20% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $18 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CRBN currently yields 2.04% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CRBN and QQQ share 81 holdings out of 997 unique holdings combined, representing a 33.8% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CRBN or QQQ?
CRBN has an expense ratio of 0.20% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $2 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CRBN or QQQ?
Over the past year CRBN returned +21.86% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), CRBN annualized +57.98% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CRBN or QQQ?
CRBN has been the more volatile fund at 3659.8% annualized versus 30.6% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: CRBN -33.1% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CRBN and QQQ?
CRBN and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of -0.06, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CRBN and QQQ?
CRBN and QQQ share 81 common holdings with a 33.8% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 997 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CRBN or QQQ?
CRBN yields 2.04% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CRBN 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.