IGM vs QQQ
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, IGM or QQQ?
Nearly the same fund. QQQ costs less.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IGM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.7%.
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 | IGM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.37% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $10.5B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.14% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 301 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +26.08%Best | +17.21% |
| 1Y Return | +32.02%Best | +22.10% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +35.80%Best | +25.27% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +18.71%Best | +14.60% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.6% | 20.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -65.6% | -60.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $23,574Best | $19,766 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.7% | 46.5%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 13, 2001 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 19, 2001 to Sep 17, 2026 (25.5 years).
IGM 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 25.5 years both funds cover.
IGM vs QQQ Performance
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF (IGM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IGM returned +32.02% while QQQ returned +22.10%. Year to date, IGM is up 26.08% versus a gain of 17.21% for QQQ.
Over three years, IGM compounded at +35.80% per year against +25.27% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +18.71% and +14.60% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IGM has the edge at +12.16% annualized vs +11.78%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IGM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.6% compared with 20.6% for QQQ. 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 -65.6% for IGM and -60.7% 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IGM charges 0.37% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $37 vs $18 annually, a gap of $19 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IGM currently yields 0.14% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
82.0% of IGM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 68.4% of QQQ's money is in holdings IGM also owns.
Most of IGM is already inside QQQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
45 positions in common, counted across the 269 positions we hold weights for in IGM and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 301 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 52 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for IGM (29.9% of the fund), and 195 for IGM that do not appear in QQQ (17.1%).
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 IGM | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.94% | 8.44% | 0.50% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 10.36% | 5.76% | 4.60% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.82% | 7.27% | 1.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 7.58% | 3.16% | 4.42% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.62% | 4.43% | 0.19% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 4.29% | 3.36% | 0.93% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.31% | 2.78% | 1.53% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.40% | 3.45% | 0.05% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 3.42% | 3.13% | 0.29% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 1.96% | 2.23% | 0.27% |
82.0% of IGM is already inside QQQ.
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, IGM or QQQ?
IGM has an expense ratio of 0.37% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $19 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IGM or QQQ?
Over the past year IGM returned +32.02% vs +22.10% for QQQ, so IGM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IGM annualized +12.16% vs +11.78% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IGM or QQQ?
IGM has been the more volatile fund at 22.6% annualized versus 20.6% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: IGM -65.6% vs QQQ -60.7%.
Should I hold both IGM and QQQ?
IGM and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 IGM and QQQ?
82.0% of IGM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 68.4% of QQQ's is in holdings IGM also owns. They hold 45 positions in common, counted across the 269 positions we hold weights for in IGM and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, IGM or QQQ?
IGM yields 0.14% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than IGM?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. IGM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.