IVV vs QQXT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs First Trust NASDAQ-100 Ex-Technology Sector Index Fund
Which is better, IVV or QQXT?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. QQXT is less concentrated, with 22.9% 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 | QQXT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.57% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $152M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.20% |
| Holdings | 508 | 110 |
| YTD Return | +12.51%Best | +0.03% |
| 1Y Return | +17.57%Best | +1.40% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.27%Best | +6.60% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.95%Best | +3.21% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5%Best | 17.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -57.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,384Best | $11,711 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9% | 22.9%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Feb 8, 2007 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 15, 2007 to Sep 11, 2026 (19.6 years).
IVV vs QQXT 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 19.6 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QQXT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and First Trust NASDAQ-100 Ex-Technology Sector Index Fund (QQXT) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% while QQXT returned +1.40%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.51% versus a gain of 0.03% for QQXT.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.27% per year against +6.60% for QQXT; over five years the annualized figures are +12.95% and +3.21% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.28% annualized vs +8.75%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQXT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.0% compared with 15.5% 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 -56.5% for IVV and -57.5% for QQXT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. 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 QQXT charges 0.57%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $57 annually, a gap of $54 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 1.20% for QQXT.
Holdings Overlap
13.0% of IVV's money is in holdings QQXT also owns. 89.6% of QQXT's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QQXT is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
48 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 54 in QQXT, against full books of 508 and 110.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for QQXT that do not appear in our book for IVV (4.3% of the fund), and 447 for IVV that do not appear in QQXT (86.4%).
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 QQXT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 1.74% | 2.27% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.36% | 1.53% | 0.17% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.33% | 2.31% | 1.98% |
| ABNBAirbnb Inc | 0.10% | 2.49% | 2.39% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 0.16% | 2.34% | 2.18% |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 0.12% | 2.36% | 2.24% |
| PAYXPaychex, Inc. | 0.06% | 2.38% | 2.32% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp. | 0.63% | 1.79% | 1.16% |
| BKNGBooking Holdings, Inc. | 0.24% | 2.15% | 1.91% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 0.74% | 1.64% | 0.90% |
89.6% of QQXT 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 QQXT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QQXT charges 0.57%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $54 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QQXT?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.57% vs +1.40% for QQXT, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +9.28% vs +8.75% for QQXT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QQXT?
QQXT has been the more volatile fund at 17.0% annualized versus 15.5% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs QQXT -57.5%.
Should I hold both IVV and QQXT?
IVV and QQXT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 QQXT?
89.6% of QQXT's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 89.6% of QQXT's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 48 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 54 in QQXT.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QQXT?
IVV yields 1.06% while QQXT yields 1.20%, so QQXT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQXT better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. QQXT is less concentrated, with 22.9% 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.