IWL vs QQQ
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, IWL or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IWL has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IWL is less concentrated, with 43.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.
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 | IWL | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $2.2B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.83% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 205 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +11.85% | +17.95%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.17% | +21.77%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.20% | +25.63%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.03% | +15.24%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.2%Best | 17.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,279 | $20,324Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.3%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Sep 22, 2009 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2009 to Sep 18, 2026 (17 years).
IWL 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 17 years both funds cover.
IWL vs QQQ Performance
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) 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 IWL returned +16.17% while QQQ returned +21.77%. Year to date, IWL is up 11.85% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.
Over three years, IWL compounded at +22.20% per year against +25.63% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +14.03% and +15.24% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.40% annualized vs +13.13%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.6% compared with 14.2% for IWL. 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 -32.7% for IWL and -35.1% 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 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWL charges 0.15% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $18 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWL currently yields 0.83% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
59.8% of IWL's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 89.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings IWL also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside IWL. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
63 positions in common, counted across the 202 positions we hold weights for in IWL and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 205 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 33 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for IWL (8.1% of the fund), and 137 for IWL that do not appear in QQQ (39.9%).
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 IWL | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 9.02% | 8.44% | 0.58% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.02% | 7.27% | 0.75% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.60% | 5.76% | 0.84% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.41% | 4.67% | 0.26% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.46% | 3.36% | 0.10% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.89% | 4.43% | 2.54% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.02% | 3.16% | 0.14% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.79% | 3.13% | 0.34% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.20% | 2.78% | 0.58% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.34% | 3.45% | 2.11% |
89.5% of QQQ is already inside IWL.
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, IWL or QQQ?
IWL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while QQQ charges 0.18%. IWL is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWL or QQQ?
Over the past year IWL returned +16.17% vs +21.77% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), IWL annualized +13.13% vs +18.40% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWL or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 14.2% for IWL. Worst drawdown: IWL -32.7% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both IWL and QQQ?
IWL and QQQ 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 IWL and QQQ?
89.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings IWL also owns. 89.5% of QQQ's is in holdings IWL also owns. They hold 63 positions in common, counted across the 202 positions we hold weights for in IWL and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWL or QQQ?
IWL yields 0.83% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so IWL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than IWL?
IWL has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IWL is less concentrated, with 43.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.