GUT vs QQQ
Gabelli Utility Trust (The) vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, GUT 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. GUT is less concentrated, with 30.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.2%.
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 | GUT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.06% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $295M | $498.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 20.12% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 215 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +1.44% | +23.76%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.38% | +25.02%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.62% | +28.26%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.13% | +16.87%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.9%Best | 30.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -57.6%Best | -83.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,666 | $21,803Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 30.3%Best | 47.2% |
| Fund Family | Gabelli Funds | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jul 9, 1999 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 12, 1999 to Oct 5, 2026 (27.2 years).
GUT 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.
GUT vs QQQ Performance
Gabelli Utility Trust (The) (GUT) is an ETF from Gabelli Funds and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year GUT returned +5.38% while QQQ returned +25.02%. Year to date, GUT is up 1.44% versus a gain of 23.76% for QQQ.
Over three years, GUT compounded at +14.62% per year against +28.26% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +3.13% and +16.87% respectively. Across the full 27-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +12.75% annualized vs +0.43%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 19.9% for GUT. 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 -57.6% for GUT and -83.0% 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 0.22. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GUT charges 2.06% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $206 vs $18 annually, a gap of $188 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GUT currently yields 20.12% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
7.7% of GUT's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 3.2% of QQQ's money is in holdings GUT also owns.
GUT and QQQ share little of their money.
The two holdings books were reported 77 days apart, GUT as of Jun 30, 2026 and QQQ as of Sep 15, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
7 positions in common, counted across the 196 positions we hold weights for in GUT and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 215 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 89 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for GUT (94.5% of the fund), and 105 for GUT that do not appear in QQQ (69.3%).
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 GUT | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XELXcel Energy Inc. | 3.18% | 0.21% | 2.97% |
| AEPAmerican Electric Power Co Inc | 1.92% | 0.30% | 1.62% |
| CEGConstellation Energy Corporation Com | 1.34% | 0.45% | 0.89% |
| TMUST-Mobile Usa Inc Esrw Usd Npv Ref Sm#585558 | 0.25% | 0.87% | 0.62% |
| EXCExelon | 0.91% | 0.20% | 0.71% |
| LINLinde Plc Ordinary Shares | 0.04% | 0.95% | 0.91% |
| FANGDiamondback Energy, Inc. | 0.01% | 0.25% | 0.24% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of GUT and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GUT or QQQ?
GUT has an expense ratio of 2.06% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $188 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GUT or QQQ?
Over the past year GUT returned +5.38% vs +25.02% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (27 years), GUT annualized +0.43% vs +12.75% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GUT or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 19.9% for GUT. Worst drawdown: GUT -57.6% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both GUT and QQQ?
GUT and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.22, 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 GUT and QQQ?
7.7% of GUT's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 3.2% of QQQ's is in holdings GUT also owns. They hold 7 positions in common, counted across the 196 positions we hold weights for in GUT and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, GUT or QQQ?
GUT yields 20.12% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so GUT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than GUT?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. GUT is less concentrated, with 30.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.