FFLC vs QQQ
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, FFLC or QQQ?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. FFLC led over 5Y, QQQ over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. FFLC is less concentrated, with 40.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.
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 | FFLC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $1.2B | $486.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.99% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 108 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +12.41% | +17.54%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.24% | +25.59%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.73% | +24.63%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +16.62%Best | +14.18% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.9%Best | 20.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -19.7%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $21,571Best | $19,407 |
| Top 10 Weight | 40.2%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 4, 2020 to Sep 4, 2026 (6.3 years).
FFLC 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 6.3 years both funds cover.
FFLC vs QQQ Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year FFLC returned +18.24% while QQQ returned +25.59%. Year to date, FFLC is up 12.41% versus a gain of 17.54% for QQQ.
Over three years, FFLC compounded at +21.73% per year against +24.63% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +16.62% and +14.18% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +20.21% annualized vs +19.96%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.4% compared with 15.9% for FFLC. 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 -19.7% for FFLC 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 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFLC charges 0.38% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $18 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFLC currently yields 0.99% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
41.6% of FFLC's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 46.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings FFLC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
19 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FFLC and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 108 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 77 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for FFLC (51.1% of the fund), and 77 for FFLC that do not appear in QQQ (50.6%).
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 FFLC | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 8.73% | 8.44% | 0.29% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.17% | 7.27% | 3.10% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 7.02% | 3.36% | 3.66% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 5.48% | 4.67% | 0.81% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 2.75% | 5.76% | 3.01% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 3.07% | 2.78% | 0.29% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.64% | 3.16% | 0.52% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.76% | 3.45% | 2.69% |
| WDCWestern Digital Corp Company Guar 11/28 3 | 1.32% | 0.79% | 0.53% |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings Plc | 1.25% | 0.83% | 0.42% |
46.5% of QQQ is already inside FFLC.
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, FFLC or QQQ?
FFLC has an expense ratio of 0.38% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFLC or QQQ?
Over the past year FFLC returned +18.24% vs +25.59% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FFLC annualized +19.96% vs +20.21% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFLC or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 20.4% annualized versus 15.9% for FFLC. Worst drawdown: FFLC -19.7% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both FFLC and QQQ?
FFLC and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, 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 FFLC and QQQ?
46.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings FFLC also owns. 46.5% of QQQ's is in holdings FFLC also owns. They hold 19 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FFLC and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFLC or QQQ?
FFLC yields 0.99% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so FFLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than FFLC?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. FFLC led over 5Y, QQQ over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. FFLC is less concentrated, with 40.2% 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.