IBAT vs QQQ
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IBAT delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IBAT | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.47% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $71M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.80% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 99 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +36.87% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +61.57% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 29.9% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -27.9% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 19, 2024 | Mar 10, 1999 |
IBAT vs QQQ Performance
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IBAT returned +61.57% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, IBAT is up 36.87% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 29.9% for IBAT. 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 -27.9% for IBAT and -83.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.69. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBAT charges 0.47% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $47 vs $18 annually, a gap of $29 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IBAT currently yields 0.80% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
IBAT and QQQ share 1 holdings out of 184 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IBAT | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| LIN | 3.27% | 1.00% | 2.27% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IBAT or QQQ?
IBAT has an expense ratio of 0.47% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $29 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IBAT or QQQ?
Over the past year IBAT returned +61.57% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so IBAT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IBAT annualized +22.74% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IBAT or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 29.9% for IBAT. Worst drawdown: IBAT -27.9% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both IBAT and QQQ?
IBAT and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IBAT and QQQ?
IBAT and QQQ share 1 common holdings with a 1.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 184 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBAT or QQQ?
IBAT yields 0.80% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so IBAT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.