EMF vs QQQ
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, EMF or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. EMF led over 1Y and 3Y, QQQ over 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.5%.
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 | EMF | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.50% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $6,444.06 | $486.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 6.95% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 100 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +36.55%Best | +17.54% |
| 1Y Return | +65.98%Best | +25.59% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +35.00%Best | +24.63% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.20% | +14.18%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 28.1%Best | 30.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -72.5%Best | -83.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,588 | $19,407Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 58.5% | 46.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 27, 1987 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 10, 1999 to Sep 4, 2026 (27.5 years).
EMF 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
EMF vs QQQ Performance
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund (EMF) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year EMF returned +65.98% while QQQ returned +25.59%. Year to date, EMF is up 36.55% versus a gain of 17.54% for QQQ.
Over three years, EMF compounded at +35.00% per year against +24.63% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +13.20% and +14.18% respectively. Across the full 28-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.05% annualized vs +4.54%.
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 28.1% 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 -72.5% for EMF and -83.0% 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 0.43. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
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 6.95% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 89 holdings in EMF and 102 in QQQ, totalling 103.4% and 99.9% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 89 positions we hold weights for in EMF and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 100 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 96 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for EMF (97.5% of the fund), and 5 for EMF that do not appear in QQQ (4.2%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of EMF 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, EMF or QQQ?
EMF has an expense ratio of 1.50% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $132 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, EMF or QQQ?
Over the past year EMF returned +65.98% vs +25.59% for QQQ, so EMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (28 years), EMF annualized +4.54% vs +13.05% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, EMF or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 28.1% for EMF. Worst drawdown: EMF -72.5% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both EMF and QQQ?
EMF and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.43, 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, EMF or QQQ?
EMF yields 6.95% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so EMF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than EMF?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. EMF led over 1Y and 3Y, QQQ over 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.