GRX vs QQQ

GRX vs QQQ

Which is better, GRX or QQQ?

Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. GRX is less concentrated, with 25.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns: QQQLess Concentrated: GRX

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

MetricGRXQQQ
Expense Ratio3.00%0.18%Best
AUM$233M$486.1B
Dividend Yield6.25%0.44%
Holdings194107
YTD Return+8.01%+17.54%Best
1Y Return+13.79%+25.59%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+8.90%+24.63%Best
5Y Return (annualized)+0.04%+14.18%Best
Volatility (annualized)18.6%Best18.9%
Max Drawdown-65.0%-53.5%Best
$10,000 over 5 years$10,020$19,407Best
Top 10 Weight25.4%Best46.5%
Fund FamilyGabelli FundsInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Growth
InceptionJun 19, 2007Mar 10, 1999

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 29, 2007 to Sep 4, 2026 (19.2 years).

GRX 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.

GRX vs QQQ Performance

The Gabelli Healthcare & Wellness RX Trust (GRX) is an ETF from Gabelli Funds and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year GRX returned +13.79% while QQQ returned +25.59%. Year to date, GRX is up 8.01% versus a gain of 17.54% for QQQ.

Over three years, GRX compounded at +8.90% per year against +24.63% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +0.04% and +14.18% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +15.40% annualized vs +3.11%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.9% compared with 18.6% for GRX. 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 -65.0% for GRX 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 0.60. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

GRX charges 3.00% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $300 vs $18 annually, a gap of $282 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GRX currently yields 6.25% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

GRX already in QQQ6.2%
QQQ already in GRX12.4%

6.2% of GRX's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 12.4% of QQQ's money is in holdings GRX also owns.

QQQ and GRX share little of their money.

The two holdings books were reported 127 days apart, GRX 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.

10 positions in common, counted across the 175 positions we hold weights for in GRX and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 194 and 107.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 86 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for GRX (85.1% of the fund), and 128 for GRX that do not appear in QQQ (75.8%).

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 GRXWeight in QQQDifference
NVDANvidia Corp.0.01%8.44%8.43%
AMGNAmgen Inc.1.88%0.97%0.91%
VRTXNvaesrtex Pharmaceuticals Inc0.97%0.54%0.43%
ISRGIntuitive Surgical Inc.0.62%0.58%0.04%
GILDGilead Sciences0.42%0.72%0.30%
REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.0.77%0.35%0.42%
KHCKraft Heinz Co.0.91%0.13%0.78%
MDLZMondelez International Inc Com A Npv0.51%0.35%0.16%
IDXXIdexx Labs0.02%0.20%0.18%
DXCMDexcom Inc.0.06%0.14%0.08%

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

GRXQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GRX or QQQ?

GRX has an expense ratio of 3.00% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $282 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, GRX or QQQ?

Over the past year GRX returned +13.79% vs +25.59% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), GRX annualized +3.11% vs +15.40% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, GRX or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.9% annualized versus 18.6% for GRX. Worst drawdown: GRX -65.0% vs QQQ -53.5%.

Should I hold both GRX and QQQ?

GRX and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.60, 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 GRX and QQQ?

12.4% of QQQ's money is in holdings GRX also owns. 12.4% of QQQ's is in holdings GRX also owns. They hold 10 positions in common, counted across the 175 positions we hold weights for in GRX and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, GRX or QQQ?

GRX yields 6.25% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so GRX currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than GRX?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. GRX is less concentrated, with 25.4% 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.