ETW vs QQQ

ETW vs QQQ

Which is better, ETW or QQQ?

Multi Alternative against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ETW is less concentrated, with 26.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns: QQQLess Concentrated: ETW

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

MetricETWQQQ
Expense Ratio1.10%0.18%Best
AUM$936M$483.5B
Dividend Yield7.32%0.44%
Holdings291107
YTD Return+10.75%+16.87%Best
1Y Return+15.68%+22.98%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+17.15%+24.98%Best
5Y Return (annualized)+6.07%+14.39%Best
Volatility (annualized)16.9%Best18.4%
Max Drawdown-72.8%-53.5%Best
$10,000 over 5 years$13,427$19,586Best
Top 10 Weight26.7%Best46.5%
Fund FamilyEaton VanceInvesco (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleMulti AlternativeLarge Cap Growth
InceptionSep 30, 2005Mar 10, 1999

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2005 to Sep 11, 2026 (21 years).

ETW 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.

ETW vs QQQ Performance

Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is an ETF from Eaton Vance and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year ETW returned +15.68% while QQQ returned +22.98%. Year to date, ETW is up 10.75% versus a gain of 16.87% for QQQ.

Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.15% per year against +24.98% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +6.07% and +14.39% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +15.11% annualized vs -1.13%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 16.9% for ETW. 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 -72.8% for ETW and -53.5% 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 0.74. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.

Fees and Cost Over Time

ETW charges 1.10% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $18 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.32% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

ETW already in QQQ37.5%
QQQ already in ETW65.3%

37.5% of ETW's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 65.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings ETW also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

The two holdings books were reported 127 days apart, ETW as of Mar 31, 2026 and QQQ as of Aug 5, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

29 positions in common, counted across the 259 positions we hold weights for in ETW and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 291 and 107.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 66 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for ETW (32.5% of the fund), and 91 for ETW that do not appear in QQQ (20.8%).

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.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in ETWWeight in QQQDifference
NVDANvidia Corp.4.84%8.44%3.60%
AAPLApple, Inc4.43%7.27%2.84%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 373.30%5.76%2.46%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc2.51%4.67%2.16%
GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.0012.00%3.36%1.36%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.0.88%4.43%3.55%
AVGOBroadcom Inc1.93%3.16%1.23%
GOOGAlphabet Inc1.59%3.13%1.54%
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.1.53%2.78%1.25%
TSLATesla Inc1.50%2.56%1.06%

65.3% of QQQ is already inside ETW.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

ETWQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, ETW or QQQ?

ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $92 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, ETW or QQQ?

Over the past year ETW returned +15.68% vs +22.98% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), ETW annualized -1.13% vs +15.11% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, ETW or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 16.9% for ETW. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs QQQ -53.5%.

Should I hold both ETW and QQQ?

ETW and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.74, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

What is the holdings overlap between ETW and QQQ?

65.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings ETW also owns. 65.3% of QQQ's is in holdings ETW also owns. They hold 29 positions in common, counted across the 259 positions we hold weights for in ETW and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or QQQ?

ETW yields 7.32% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so ETW currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than ETW?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ETW is less concentrated, with 26.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.