HEFT vs QQQ

HEFT vs QQQ

Which is better, HEFT or QQQ?

Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. HEFT is less concentrated, with 43.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQLess Concentrated: HEFT

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

MetricHEFTQQQ
Expense Ratio0.70%0.18%Best
AUM$81M$483.5B
Dividend Yield0.02%0.44%
Holdings51107
YTD Return+3.82%+17.95%Best
1Y Return-+21.77%
3Y Return (annualized)-+25.63%
5Y Return (annualized)-+15.24%
Top 10 Weight43.5%Best46.5%
Fund FamilyHedgeye Asset ManagementInvesco (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Growth
InceptionNov 20, 2025Mar 10, 1999

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

HEFT 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.

HEFT vs QQQ Performance

Hedgeye Fourth Turning ETF (HEFT) is an ETF from Hedgeye Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Year to date, HEFT is up 3.82% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

HEFT charges 0.70% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $70 vs $18 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, HEFT currently yields 0.02% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

HEFT already in QQQ40.0%
QQQ already in HEFT43.8%

40.0% of HEFT's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 43.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings HEFT also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

14 positions in common, counted across the 48 positions we hold weights for in HEFT and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 51 and 107.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 82 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for HEFT (53.7% of the fund), and 33 for HEFT that do not appear in QQQ (55.8%).

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 HEFTWeight in QQQDifference
AAPLApple, Inc9.50%7.27%2.23%
NVDANvidia Corp6.67%8.44%1.77%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc4.18%4.67%0.49%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp3.09%5.76%2.67%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A2.99%3.36%0.37%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc2.55%3.45%0.90%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.1.37%4.43%3.06%
AMATApplied Materials, Inc.2.03%1.86%0.17%
PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc1.40%1.30%0.10%
KLACKla Corp1.22%1.11%0.11%

43.8% of QQQ is already inside HEFT.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

HEFTQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, HEFT or QQQ?

HEFT has an expense ratio of 0.70% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between HEFT and QQQ?

43.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings HEFT also owns. 43.8% of QQQ's is in holdings HEFT also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 48 positions we hold weights for in HEFT and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, HEFT or QQQ?

HEFT yields 0.02% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than HEFT?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. HEFT is less concentrated, with 43.5% 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.