LEMB vs QQQ
iShares JP Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. LEMB offers more diversification with 469 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | LEMB | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $721M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.38% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 469 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +3.80% | +16.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +8.84% | +26.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +7.31% | +25.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.89% | +14.78% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.1% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -31.1% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 18, 2011 | Mar 10, 1999 |
LEMB vs QQQ Performance
iShares JP Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year LEMB returned +8.84% while QQQ returned +26.23%. Year to date, LEMB is up 3.80% versus a gain of 16.23% for QQQ.
Over three years, LEMB compounded at +7.31% per year against +25.75% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +1.89% and +14.78% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.02% annualized vs +0.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 10.1% for LEMB. 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 -31.1% for LEMB and -83.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.42. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LEMB charges 0.30% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $18 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LEMB currently yields 2.38% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
LEMB and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 105 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, LEMB or QQQ?
LEMB has an expense ratio of 0.30% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $12 per year of difference.
Which performed better, LEMB or QQQ?
Over the past year LEMB returned +8.84% vs +26.23% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), LEMB annualized +0.58% vs +13.02% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, LEMB or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 10.1% for LEMB. Worst drawdown: LEMB -31.1% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both LEMB and QQQ?
LEMB and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.42, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between LEMB and QQQ?
LEMB and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 105 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, LEMB or QQQ?
LEMB yields 2.38% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so LEMB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.