DECT vs QQQ

DECT vs QQQ

Which is better, DECT or QQQ?

Option Writing against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns: QQQ

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

MetricDECTQQQ
Expense Ratio0.74%0.18%Best
AUM$127M$483.5B
Dividend Yield0.00%0.44%
Holdings5107
YTD Return+9.77%+17.21%Best
1Y Return+14.69%+22.10%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+14.23%+25.27%Best
5Y Return (annualized)-+14.60%
Volatility (annualized)9.0%Best17.5%
Max Drawdown-13.3%Best-22.8%
$10,000 over 3.8 years$16,132$25,001Best
Fund FamilyAllianzIMInvesco (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleOption WritingLarge Cap Growth
InceptionNov 30, 2022Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 1, 2022 to Sep 17, 2026 (3.8 years).

DECT 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 3.8 years both funds cover.

DECT vs QQQ Performance

AllianzIM US Equity Buffer10 Dec ETF (DECT) is an ETF from AllianzIM and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year DECT returned +14.69% while QQQ returned +22.10%. Year to date, DECT is up 9.77% versus a gain of 17.21% for QQQ.

Over three years, DECT compounded at +14.23% per year against +25.27% for QQQ. Across the full 4-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +27.27% annualized vs +13.41%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.5% compared with 9.0% for DECT. 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 -13.3% for DECT and -22.8% 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 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.

Fees and Cost Over Time

DECT charges 0.74% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $74 vs $18 annually, a gap of $56 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DECT currently yields 0.00% against 0.44% for QQQ.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of DECT and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

DECTQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, DECT or QQQ?

DECT has an expense ratio of 0.74% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $56 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, DECT or QQQ?

Over the past year DECT returned +14.69% vs +22.10% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), DECT annualized +13.41% vs +27.27% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, DECT or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.5% annualized versus 9.0% for DECT. Worst drawdown: DECT -13.3% vs QQQ -22.8%.

Should I hold both DECT and QQQ?

DECT and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, DECT or QQQ?

DECT yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than DECT?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.