CSM vs QQQ
ProShares Large Cap Core Plus vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. CSM offers more diversification with 308 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CSM | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.45% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $537M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.04% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 308 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +12.66% | +19.52% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.21% | +26.68% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.95% | +26.64% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.83% | +15.36% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -36.1% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | ProShares | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 13, 2009 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CSM vs QQQ Performance
ProShares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM) is a ETF from ProShares and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CSM returned +22.21% while QQQ returned +26.68%. Year to date, CSM is up 12.66% versus a gain of 19.52% for QQQ.
Over three years, CSM compounded at +21.95% per year against +26.64% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +12.83% and +15.36% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, CSM has the edge at +15.01% annualized vs +13.14%. 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 15.0% for CSM. 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 -36.1% for CSM 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CSM charges 0.45% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $45 vs $18 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CSM currently yields 1.04% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CSM and QQQ share 56 holdings out of 348 unique holdings combined, representing a 35.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CSM or QQQ?
CSM has an expense ratio of 0.45% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $27 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CSM or QQQ?
Over the past year CSM returned +22.21% vs +26.68% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), CSM annualized +15.01% vs +13.14% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CSM or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 15.0% for CSM. Worst drawdown: CSM -36.1% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CSM and QQQ?
CSM and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CSM and QQQ?
CSM and QQQ share 56 common holdings with a 35.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 348 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CSM or QQQ?
CSM yields 1.04% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CSM 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.