CSF vs QQQ
VictoryShares US Discovery Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. CSF offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CSF | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.41% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $26M | $455.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.51% | 0.41% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | -6.58% | +18.20% | |
| 1Y Return | +4.25% | +27.63% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -2.15% | +25.54% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.06% | +15.12% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.1% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -35.9% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 31, 2014 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CSF vs QQQ Performance
VictoryShares US Discovery Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CSF) 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 CSF returned +4.25% while QQQ returned +27.63%. Year to date, CSF is down 6.58% versus a gain of 18.20% for QQQ.
Over three years, CSF compounded at -2.15% per year against +25.54% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +10.06% and +15.12% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.11% annualized vs +5.02%. 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 16.1% for CSF. 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 -35.9% for CSF 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 0.53. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CSF charges 0.41% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $41 vs $18 annually, a gap of $23 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CSF currently yields 1.51% against 0.41% for QQQ.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CSF or QQQ?
CSF has an expense ratio of 0.41% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $23 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CSF or QQQ?
Over the past year CSF returned +4.25% vs +27.63% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), CSF annualized +5.02% vs +13.11% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CSF or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 16.1% for CSF. Worst drawdown: CSF -35.9% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CSF and QQQ?
CSF and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.53, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
Which pays a higher dividend, CSF or QQQ?
CSF yields 1.51% while QQQ yields 0.41%, so CSF 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.