IWY vs QQQ
iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, IWY or QQQ?
Nearly the same fund. QQQ costs less.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.4%.
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 | IWY | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $16.3B | $498.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.35% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 210 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +8.66% | +22.09%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.56% | +24.51%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +24.21% | +27.61%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.87% | +16.57%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.0%Best | 17.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,000 | $21,525Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 62.4% | 47.2%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | 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 Oct 12, 2026 (17 years).
IWY 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.
IWY vs QQQ Performance
iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY) 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 IWY returned +9.56% while QQQ returned +24.51%. Year to date, IWY is up 8.66% versus a gain of 22.09% for QQQ.
Over three years, IWY compounded at +24.21% per year against +27.61% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +14.87% and +16.57% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.56% annualized vs +15.90%.
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 16.0% for IWY. 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 IWY 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 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWY charges 0.20% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $18 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWY currently yields 0.35% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
78.9% of IWY's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 78.2% of QQQ's money is in holdings IWY also owns.
Most of IWY is already inside QQQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
45 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in IWY and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 210 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 51 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for IWY (19.5% of the fund), and 56 for IWY that do not appear in QQQ (21.0%).
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 IWY | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.68% | 8.45% | 7.23% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.31% | 7.80% | 0.51% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.15% | 5.88% | 0.27% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 6.12% | 3.15% | 2.97% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.18% | 4.85% | 0.67% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.48% | 2.74% | 2.74% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 4.95% | 2.93% | 2.02% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.29% | 3.07% | 1.22% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 4.04% | 2.92% | 1.12% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.93% | 3.71% | 0.78% |
78.9% of IWY is already inside QQQ.
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, IWY or QQQ?
IWY has an expense ratio of 0.20% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWY or QQQ?
Over the past year IWY returned +9.56% vs +24.51% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), IWY annualized +15.90% vs +18.56% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWY or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 16.0% for IWY. Worst drawdown: IWY -32.7% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both IWY and QQQ?
IWY and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 IWY and QQQ?
78.9% of IWY's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 78.2% of QQQ's is in holdings IWY also owns. They hold 45 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in IWY and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWY or QQQ?
IWY yields 0.35% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than IWY?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.