EDEN vs QQQ
iShares MSCI Denmark 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 108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EDEN | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.53% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $190M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.97% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 46 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +2.02% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +8.36% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.44% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.69% | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 629.5% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -36.6% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 25, 2012 | Mar 10, 1999 |
EDEN vs QQQ Performance
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year EDEN returned +8.36% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, EDEN is up 2.02% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, EDEN compounded at +5.44% per year against +25.96% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +1.69% and +14.54% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, EDEN has the edge at +34.10% annualized vs +13.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EDEN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 629.5% compared with 30.6% for QQQ. 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 -36.6% for EDEN 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 0.11. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EDEN charges 0.53% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $53 vs $18 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EDEN currently yields 2.97% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
EDEN and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 143 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, EDEN or QQQ?
EDEN has an expense ratio of 0.53% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $35 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EDEN or QQQ?
Over the past year EDEN returned +8.36% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), EDEN annualized +34.10% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EDEN or QQQ?
EDEN has been the more volatile fund at 629.5% annualized versus 30.6% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: EDEN -36.6% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both EDEN and QQQ?
EDEN and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.11, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EDEN and QQQ?
EDEN and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 143 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EDEN or QQQ?
EDEN yields 2.97% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so EDEN 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.