JMOM vs QQQ
JPMorgan US Momentum Factor ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, JMOM or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
JMOM has a lower expense ratio. JMOM led over 1Y and 3Y, QQQ over 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. JMOM is less concentrated, with 19.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.9%.
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 | JMOM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.12%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $2.6B | $437.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.78% | 0.43% |
| Holdings | 580 | 208 |
| YTD Return | +16.08%Best | +12.62% |
| 1Y Return | +16.24%Best | +11.32% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +24.57%Best | +22.90% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.39% | +12.43%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.4%Best | 20.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.3%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,149 | $17,964Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 19.1%Best | 46.9% |
| Fund Family | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Nov 8, 2017 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2017 to Nov 12, 2026 (9 years).
JMOM 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 9 years both funds cover.
JMOM vs QQQ Performance
JPMorgan US Momentum Factor ETF (JMOM) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year JMOM returned +16.24% while QQQ returned +11.32%. Year to date, JMOM is up 16.08% versus a gain of 12.62% for QQQ.
Over three years, JMOM compounded at +24.57% per year against +22.90% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +11.39% and +12.43% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.55% annualized vs +14.46%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.1% compared with 17.4% for JMOM. 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 -34.3% for JMOM 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 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JMOM charges 0.12% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $12 vs $18 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JMOM currently yields 0.78% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
35.5% of JMOM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 67.2% of QQQ's money is in holdings JMOM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
40 positions in common, counted across the 282 positions we hold weights for in JMOM and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 580 and 208.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 53 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for JMOM (30.0% of the fund), and 228 for JMOM that do not appear in QQQ (60.5%).
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 JMOM | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 1.95% | 8.05% | 6.10% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 2.17% | 7.68% | 5.51% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.16% | 6.16% | 4.00% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.42% | 3.90% | 1.48% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.82% | 4.47% | 2.65% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.08% | 3.15% | 1.07% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.59% | 4.23% | 3.64% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.96% | 2.52% | 0.56% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 1.29% | 2.43% | 1.14% |
| INTCIntel Corp. | 1.36% | 2.13% | 0.77% |
67.2% of QQQ is already inside JMOM.
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, JMOM or QQQ?
JMOM has an expense ratio of 0.12% while QQQ charges 0.18%. JMOM is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JMOM or QQQ?
Over the past year JMOM returned +16.24% vs +11.32% for QQQ, so JMOM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), JMOM annualized +14.46% vs +18.55% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JMOM or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 20.1% annualized versus 17.4% for JMOM. Worst drawdown: JMOM -34.3% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both JMOM and QQQ?
JMOM and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 JMOM and QQQ?
67.2% of QQQ's money is in holdings JMOM also owns. 67.2% of QQQ's is in holdings JMOM also owns. They hold 40 positions in common, counted across the 282 positions we hold weights for in JMOM and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, JMOM or QQQ?
JMOM yields 0.78% while QQQ yields 0.43%, so JMOM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than JMOM?
JMOM has a lower expense ratio. JMOM led over 1Y and 3Y, QQQ over 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. JMOM is less concentrated, with 19.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.