EMF vs QQQ
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. EMF delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 103 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EMF | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.50% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $6,444.06 | $455.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.49% | 0.41% | |
| Holdings | 100 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +29.07% | +17.46% | |
| 1Y Return | +57.20% | +26.02% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +32.33% | +25.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.10% | +15.12% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 29.3% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -73.7% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 27, 1987 | Mar 10, 1999 |
EMF vs QQQ Performance
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund (EMF) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year EMF returned +57.20% while QQQ returned +26.02%. Year to date, EMF is up 29.07% versus a gain of 17.46% for QQQ.
Over three years, EMF compounded at +32.33% per year against +25.51% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +12.10% and +15.12% respectively. Across the full 27-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.08% annualized vs +1.77%. 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 29.3% for EMF. 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 -73.7% for EMF 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 0.43. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EMF charges 1.50% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $150 vs $18 annually, a gap of $132 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EMF currently yields 6.49% against 0.41% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
EMF and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 188 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, EMF or QQQ?
EMF has an expense ratio of 1.50% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $132 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EMF or QQQ?
Over the past year EMF returned +57.20% vs +26.02% for QQQ, so EMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (27 years), EMF annualized +1.77% vs +13.08% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EMF or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 29.3% for EMF. Worst drawdown: EMF -73.7% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both EMF and QQQ?
EMF and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.43, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EMF and QQQ?
EMF and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 188 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EMF or QQQ?
EMF yields 6.49% while QQQ yields 0.41%, so EMF 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.