IVV vs QQQE
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Direxion NASDAQ-100 Equal Weighted Index ETF
Which is better, IVV or QQQE?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, QQQE over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QQQE is less concentrated, with 12.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%.
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 | IVV | QQQE |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $1.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.58% |
| Holdings | 508 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +11.57% | +15.23%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.57% | +21.05%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.71%Best | +15.48% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.80%Best | +7.81% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.1%Best | 16.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9% | -32.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,262Best | $14,564 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 12.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Direxion Shares ETF Trust |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 21, 2012 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 21, 2012 to Sep 10, 2026 (14.5 years).
IVV vs QQQE 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 14.5 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QQQE Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Direxion NASDAQ-100 Equal Weighted Index ETF (QQQE) is an ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while QQQE returned +21.05%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.57% versus a gain of 15.23% for QQQE.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.71% per year against +15.48% for QQQE; over five years the annualized figures are +12.80% and +7.81% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, QQQE has the edge at +13.59% annualized vs +12.94%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQE has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.2% compared with 14.1% for IVV. 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 -33.9% for IVV and -32.1% for QQQE. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while QQQE charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $35 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.58% for QQQE.
Holdings Overlap
54.1% of IVV's money is in holdings QQQE also owns. 85.2% of QQQE's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QQQE is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
87 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 103 in QQQE, against full books of 508 and 103.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 8 positions for QQQE that do not appear in our book for IVV (5.6% of the fund), and 408 for IVV that do not appear in QQQE (45.2%).
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 IVV | Weight in QQQE | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 0.98% | 7.00% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 0.97% | 5.89% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 1.07% | 4.37% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 1.00% | 3.01% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 0.91% | 2.07% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.19% | 0.49% | 2.70% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.56% | 0.49% | 2.07% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 0.91% | 1.03% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.51% | 0.90% | 0.61% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 1.18% | 0.98% | 0.20% |
85.2% of QQQE is already inside IVV.
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, IVV or QQQE?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QQQE charges 0.35%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QQQE?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +21.05% for QQQE, so QQQE leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), IVV annualized +12.94% vs +13.59% for QQQE. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QQQE?
QQQE has been the more volatile fund at 16.2% annualized versus 14.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs QQQE -32.1%.
Should I hold both IVV and QQQE?
IVV and QQQE have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 IVV and QQQE?
85.2% of QQQE's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 85.2% of QQQE's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 87 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 103 in QQQE.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QQQE?
IVV yields 1.06% while QQQE yields 0.58%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQE better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 3Y and 5Y, QQQE over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QQQE is less concentrated, with 12.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.