IVV vs QTEC
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs First Trust NASDAQ-100-Technology Sector Index Fund
Which is better, IVV or QTEC?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. QTEC led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QTEC is less concentrated, with 28.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | QTEC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.55% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $4.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.01% |
| Holdings | 508 | 96 |
| YTD Return | +12.39% | +35.07%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.61% | +37.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.38% | +28.44%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.51% | +14.07%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2%Best | 22.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -58.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,844 | $19,313Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8% | 28.3%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 | Apr 19, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 25, 2006 to Sep 18, 2026 (20.4 years).
IVV vs QTEC 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 20.4 years both funds cover.
IVV vs QTEC Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and First Trust NASDAQ-100-Technology Sector Index Fund (QTEC) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% while QTEC returned +37.63%. Year to date, IVV is up 12.39% versus a gain of 35.07% for QTEC.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.38% per year against +28.44% for QTEC; over five years the annualized figures are +13.51% and +14.07% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, QTEC has the edge at +14.58% annualized vs +9.48%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QTEC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.3% compared with 15.2% 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 -58.9% for QTEC. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while QTEC charges 0.55%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $55 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.01% for QTEC.
Holdings Overlap
40.5% of IVV's money is in holdings QTEC also owns. 78.9% of QTEC's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of QTEC is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
37 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 47 in QTEC, against full books of 508 and 96.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for QTEC that do not appear in our book for IVV (9.0% of the fund), and 445 for IVV that do not appear in QTEC (58.1%).
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 IVV | Weight in QTEC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 2.32% | 5.75% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 2.25% | 4.77% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 2.50% | 3.19% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 1.84% | 0.81% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 0.99% | 2.01% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 2.00% | 0.10% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 2.19% | 0.56% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 0.47% | 3.01% | 2.54% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 0.99% | 1.40% |
| DASHDoordash Inc - A | 0.13% | 3.22% | 3.09% |
78.9% of QTEC 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 QTEC?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while QTEC charges 0.55%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or QTEC?
Over the past year IVV returned +16.61% vs +37.63% for QTEC, so QTEC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IVV annualized +9.48% vs +14.58% for QTEC. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or QTEC?
QTEC has been the more volatile fund at 22.3% annualized versus 15.2% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs QTEC -58.9%.
Should I hold both IVV and QTEC?
IVV and QTEC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and QTEC?
78.9% of QTEC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 78.9% of QTEC's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 37 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 47 in QTEC.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or QTEC?
IVV yields 1.06% while QTEC yields 0.01%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QTEC better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. QTEC led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QTEC is less concentrated, with 28.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.