IQSZ vs VOO
Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, IQSZ or VOO?
Nearly the same fund. VOO costs less.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. IQSZ led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IQSZ is less concentrated, with 25.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%.
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 | IQSZ | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $174M | $1.0T |
| Dividend Yield | 1.40% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 981 | 506 |
| YTD Return | +15.82%Best | +13.59% |
| 1Y Return | +21.51%Best | +16.33% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +23.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.02% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.0%Best | 11.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -9.1% | -8.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.2 years | $13,128Best | $12,481 |
| Top 10 Weight | 25.0%Best | 37.6% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 16, 2025 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 16, 2025 to Oct 2, 2026 (1.2 years).
IQSZ vs VOO 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 1.2 years both funds cover.
IQSZ vs VOO Performance
Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF (IQSZ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IQSZ returned +21.51% while VOO returned +16.33%. Year to date, IQSZ is up 15.82% versus a gain of 13.59% for VOO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VOO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.9% compared with 11.0% for IQSZ. 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 -9.1% for IQSZ and -8.9% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IQSZ charges 0.19% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IQSZ currently yields 1.40% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
60.3% of IQSZ's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 73.8% of VOO's money is in holdings IQSZ also owns.
Most of VOO is already inside IQSZ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, IQSZ as of Sep 15, 2026 and VOO as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
179 positions in common, counted across the 477 positions we hold weights for in IQSZ and 494 in VOO, against full books of 981 and 506.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 309 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for IQSZ (25.4% of the fund), and 29 for IQSZ that do not appear in VOO (4.5%).
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 IQSZ | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 4.92% | 7.55% | 2.63% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.83% | 7.05% | 2.22% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.32% | 5.36% | 2.04% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.45% | 4.13% | 1.68% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 1.90% | 3.24% | 1.34% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.46% | 2.86% | 1.40% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 1.51% | 2.62% | 1.11% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.38% | 1.90% | 0.52% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.19% | 1.44% | 0.25% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 0.95% | 1.36% | 0.41% |
73.8% of VOO is already inside IQSZ.
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, IQSZ or VOO?
IQSZ has an expense ratio of 0.19% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IQSZ or VOO?
Over the past year IQSZ returned +21.51% vs +16.33% for VOO, so IQSZ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), IQSZ annualized +25.46% vs +20.28% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IQSZ or VOO?
VOO has been the more volatile fund at 11.9% annualized versus 11.0% for IQSZ. Worst drawdown: IQSZ -9.1% vs VOO -8.9%.
Should I hold both IQSZ and VOO?
IQSZ and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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 IQSZ and VOO?
73.8% of VOO's money is in holdings IQSZ also owns. 73.8% of VOO's is in holdings IQSZ also owns. They hold 179 positions in common, counted across the 477 positions we hold weights for in IQSZ and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, IQSZ or VOO?
IQSZ yields 1.40% while VOO yields 1.04%, so IQSZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than IQSZ?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. IQSZ led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IQSZ is less concentrated, with 25.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.