EBND vs QQQ
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. EBND offers more diversification with 653 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EBND | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $2.3B | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.84% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 653 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +2.75% | +17.07% | |
| 1Y Return | +6.20% | +26.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +6.93% | +26.08% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.35% | +15.18% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.1% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -41.0% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 23, 2011 | Mar 10, 1999 |
EBND vs QQQ Performance
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year EBND returned +6.20% while QQQ returned +26.39%. Year to date, EBND is up 2.75% versus a gain of 17.07% for QQQ.
Over three years, EBND compounded at +6.93% per year against +26.08% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +1.35% and +15.18% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.05% annualized vs -0.50%. 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 10.1% for EBND. 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 -41.0% for EBND 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 0.48. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EBND charges 0.30% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $18 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EBND currently yields 5.84% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
EBND and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 104 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EBND or QQQ?
EBND has an expense ratio of 0.30% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $12 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EBND or QQQ?
Over the past year EBND returned +6.20% vs +26.39% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), EBND annualized -0.50% vs +13.05% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EBND or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 10.1% for EBND. Worst drawdown: EBND -41.0% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both EBND and QQQ?
EBND and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.48, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EBND and QQQ?
EBND and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 104 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EBND or QQQ?
EBND yields 5.84% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so EBND 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.