CZA vs QQQ
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CZA or QQQ?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CZA is less concentrated, with 19.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CZA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $183M | $486.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.37% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 103 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +12.17% | +17.54%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.18% | +25.59%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.77% | +24.63%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.14% | +14.18%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.6%Best | 18.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -53.2%Best | -53.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,118 | $19,407Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 19.0%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Apr 2, 2007 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 3, 2007 to Sep 4, 2026 (19.4 years).
CZA vs QQQ growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 19.4 years both funds cover.
CZA vs QQQ Performance
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CZA returned +16.18% while QQQ returned +25.59%. Year to date, CZA is up 12.17% versus a gain of 17.54% for QQQ.
Over three years, CZA compounded at +13.77% per year against +24.63% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +7.14% and +14.18% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +15.64% annualized vs +9.63%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% 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 -53.5% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
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 1.37% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
1.5% of CZA's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 0.1% of QQQ's money is in holdings CZA also owns.
CZA and QQQ share little of their money.
1 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CZA and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 103 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 95 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for CZA (97.4% of the fund), and 90 for CZA that do not appear in QQQ (86.2%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CZA | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| GEHCGe Healthcare Technologies Inc | 1.48% | 0.14% | 1.34% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CZA and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
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, by $51 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CZA or QQQ?
Over the past year CZA returned +16.18% vs +25.59% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CZA annualized +9.63% vs +15.64% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CZA or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 16.6% for CZA. Worst drawdown: CZA -53.2% vs QQQ -53.5%.
Should I hold both CZA and QQQ?
CZA and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CZA and QQQ?
1.5% of CZA's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 0.1% of QQQ's is in holdings CZA also owns. They hold 1 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CZA and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, CZA or QQQ?
CZA yields 1.37% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CZA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CZA?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CZA is less concentrated, with 19.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.