CSA vs QQQ
VictoryShares US Small Cap Volatility Wtd ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. CSA offers more diversification with 507 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CSA | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $20M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.50% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 507 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | -10.11% | +16.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +0.59% | +26.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.64% | +25.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.99% | +14.78% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.5% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -42.4% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 7, 2015 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CSA vs QQQ Performance
VictoryShares US Small Cap Volatility Wtd ETF (CSA) 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 CSA returned +0.59% while QQQ returned +26.23%. Year to date, CSA is down 10.11% versus a gain of 16.23% for QQQ.
Over three years, CSA compounded at +3.64% per year against +25.75% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +15.99% and +14.78% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.02% annualized vs +8.20%. 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 20.5% for CSA. 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 -42.4% for CSA 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 0.68. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CSA charges 0.35% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $18 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CSA currently yields 1.50% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CSA or QQQ?
CSA has an expense ratio of 0.35% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $17 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CSA or QQQ?
Over the past year CSA returned +0.59% vs +26.23% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), CSA annualized +8.20% vs +13.02% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CSA or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 20.5% for CSA. Worst drawdown: CSA -42.4% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CSA and QQQ?
CSA and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.68, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
Which pays a higher dividend, CSA or QQQ?
CSA yields 1.50% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CSA 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.