CZA vs QQQ
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 103 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CZA | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $189M | $455.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.41% | 0.41% | |
| Holdings | 104 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +13.94% | +18.31% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.19% | +25.37% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.75% | +25.79% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.43% | +15.20% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.6% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -53.2% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 2, 2007 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CZA vs QQQ Performance
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CZA returned +20.19% while QQQ returned +25.37%. Year to date, CZA is up 13.94% versus a gain of 18.31% for QQQ.
Over three years, CZA compounded at +13.75% per year against +25.79% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +7.43% and +15.20% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.10% annualized vs +9.76%. 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 16.6% for CZA. 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 -53.2% for CZA 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 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CZA charges 0.69% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $18 annually, a gap of $51 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CZA currently yields 1.41% against 0.41% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CZA or QQQ?
CZA has an expense ratio of 0.69% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $51 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CZA or QQQ?
Over the past year CZA returned +20.19% vs +25.37% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CZA annualized +9.76% vs +13.10% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CZA or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 16.6% for CZA. Worst drawdown: CZA -53.2% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CZA and QQQ?
CZA and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CZA and QQQ?
CZA and QQQ share 2 common holdings with a 0.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 203 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CZA or QQQ?
CZA yields 1.41% while QQQ yields 0.41%, so CZA 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.