FCOM vs QQQ
Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, FCOM or QQQ?
QQQ has been ahead.
FCOM has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 71.3%.
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 | FCOM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $1.7B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.99% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 92 | 107 |
| YTD Return | -1.60% | +17.95%Best |
| 1Y Return | -0.51% | +21.77%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.58% | +25.63%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.64% | +15.24%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.0%Best | 18.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -46.8% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,791 | $20,324Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 71.3% | 46.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Oct 21, 2013 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 24, 2013 to Sep 18, 2026 (12.9 years).
FCOM 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 covers the 12.9 years both funds cover.
FCOM vs QQQ Performance
Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year FCOM returned -0.51% while QQQ returned +21.77%. Year to date, FCOM is down 1.60% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.
Over three years, FCOM compounded at +21.58% per year against +25.63% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +6.64% and +15.24% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.62% annualized vs +8.82%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.0% compared with 17.0% for FCOM. 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 -46.8% for FCOM and -35.1% 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 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FCOM charges 0.08% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $18 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FCOM currently yields 0.99% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
63.2% of FCOM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 13.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings FCOM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
10 positions in common, counted across the 86 positions we hold weights for in FCOM and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 92 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 86 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for FCOM (83.8% of the fund), and 70 for FCOM that do not appear in QQQ (35.5%).
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
| Stock | Weight in FCOM | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 20.54% | 2.78% | 17.76% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 14.61% | 3.36% | 11.25% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 8.17% | 3.13% | 5.04% |
| NFLXNetflix, Inc. | 5.44% | 1.37% | 4.07% |
| TMUST-Mobile Usa Inc Esrw Usd Npv Ref Sm#585558 | 2.77% | 0.82% | 1.95% |
| CMCSAComcast Corp-class A Cmcsa | 3.15% | 0.39% | 2.76% |
| WBDWarner Bros. Discovery, Inc | 2.67% | 0.29% | 2.38% |
| SPCXSpace Exploration Technologies | 2.05% | 0.91% | 1.14% |
| TTWOTake-Two Interactive Software, Inc. | 2.10% | 0.19% | 1.91% |
| APPAppLovin Corp. Com Cl A | 1.70% | 0.56% | 1.14% |
63.2% of FCOM is already inside QQQ.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FCOM or QQQ?
FCOM has an expense ratio of 0.08% while QQQ charges 0.18%. FCOM is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FCOM or QQQ?
Over the past year FCOM returned -0.51% vs +21.77% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FCOM annualized +8.82% vs +18.62% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FCOM or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.0% annualized versus 17.0% for FCOM. Worst drawdown: FCOM -46.8% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both FCOM and QQQ?
FCOM and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, 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 FCOM and QQQ?
63.2% of FCOM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 13.8% of QQQ's is in holdings FCOM also owns. They hold 10 positions in common, counted across the 86 positions we hold weights for in FCOM and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, FCOM or QQQ?
FCOM yields 0.99% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so FCOM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than FCOM?
FCOM has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 71.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.