GINN vs QQQ
Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, GINN or QQQ?
All Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. GINN is less concentrated, with 15.7% 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 | GINN | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $198M | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.12% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 483 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +10.56% | +17.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.90% | +22.10%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.84% | +25.27%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.18% | +14.60%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.3%Best | 19.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -41.3% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,496 | $19,766Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 15.7%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Nov 9, 2020 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2020 to Sep 17, 2026 (5.9 years).
GINN 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 5.9 years both funds cover.
GINN vs QQQ Performance
Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year GINN returned +12.90% while QQQ returned +22.10%. Year to date, GINN is up 10.56% versus a gain of 17.21% for QQQ.
Over three years, GINN compounded at +19.84% per year against +25.27% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +6.18% and +14.60% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +17.47% annualized vs +9.17%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.9% compared with 18.3% for GINN. 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 -41.3% for GINN 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GINN charges 0.50% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $18 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GINN currently yields 1.12% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
27.4% of GINN's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 68.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings GINN also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
43 positions in common, counted across the 474 positions we hold weights for in GINN and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 483 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 55 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for GINN (29.7% of the fund), and 281 for GINN that do not appear in QQQ (48.0%).
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
| Stock | Weight in GINN | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 1.96% | 8.44% | 6.48% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.01% | 7.27% | 5.26% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.02% | 5.76% | 3.74% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 1.88% | 4.67% | 2.79% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 1.91% | 3.36% | 1.45% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.49% | 4.43% | 3.94% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.52% | 2.78% | 1.26% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.57% | 3.45% | 2.88% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.70% | 3.16% | 2.46% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.21% | 2.56% | 1.35% |
68.8% of QQQ is already inside GINN.
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, GINN or QQQ?
GINN has an expense ratio of 0.50% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GINN or QQQ?
Over the past year GINN returned +12.90% vs +22.10% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), GINN annualized +9.17% vs +17.47% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GINN or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 19.9% annualized versus 18.3% for GINN. Worst drawdown: GINN -41.3% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both GINN and QQQ?
GINN and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between GINN and QQQ?
68.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings GINN also owns. 68.8% of QQQ's is in holdings GINN also owns. They hold 43 positions in common, counted across the 474 positions we hold weights for in GINN and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, GINN or QQQ?
GINN yields 1.12% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so GINN currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than GINN?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. GINN is less concentrated, with 15.7% 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.