FRGN vs QQQ

FRGN vs QQQ

Which is better, FRGN or QQQ?

Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. FRGN is less concentrated, with 21.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQLess Concentrated: FRGN

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

MetricFRGNQQQ
Expense Ratio0.75%0.18%Best
AUM$156M$483.5B
Dividend Yield0.21%0.44%
Holdings284107
YTD Return+21.72%Best+16.87%
1Y Return-+22.98%
3Y Return (annualized)-+24.98%
5Y Return (annualized)-+14.39%
Top 10 Weight21.0%Best46.5%
Fund FamilyHorizon FundsInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Growth
InceptionDec 2, 2025Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

FRGN 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.

FRGN vs QQQ Performance

Horizon International Equity ETF (FRGN) is an ETF from Horizon Funds and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Year to date, FRGN is up 21.72% versus a gain of 16.87% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

FRGN charges 0.75% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $18 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FRGN currently yields 0.21% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

FRGN already in QQQ4.1%
QQQ already in FRGN1.2%

4.1% of FRGN's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 1.2% of QQQ's money is in holdings FRGN also owns.

FRGN and QQQ share little of their money.

The two holdings books were reported 66 days apart, FRGN as of May 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.

3 positions in common, counted across the 283 positions we hold weights for in FRGN and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 284 and 107.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 95 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for FRGN (97.0% of the fund), and 12 for FRGN that do not appear in QQQ (6.0%).

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 FRGNWeight in QQQDifference
ASML:ASAsml Holding Adr Representing Nv3.54%0.68%2.86%
PDD:IEPdd Holdings Inc0.40%0.27%0.13%
CCEP:LNCoca-Cola Europacific Partne0.16%0.21%0.05%

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of FRGN and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

FRGNQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, FRGN or QQQ?

FRGN has an expense ratio of 0.75% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between FRGN and QQQ?

4.1% of FRGN's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 1.2% of QQQ's is in holdings FRGN also owns. They hold 3 positions in common, counted across the 283 positions we hold weights for in FRGN and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, FRGN or QQQ?

FRGN yields 0.21% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than FRGN?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. FRGN is less concentrated, with 21.0% 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.