LEO vs QQQ
BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals Inc vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. LEO offers more diversification with 262 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | LEO | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.98% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $502M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.49% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 262 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +0.05% | +16.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +10.92% | +26.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +6.99% | +25.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -3.88% | +14.78% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.7% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -58.0% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | BNY Mellon Investment Management | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Tax Preferred | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 23, 1987 | Mar 10, 1999 |
LEO vs QQQ Performance
BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals Inc (LEO) is a ETF from BNY Mellon Investment Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year LEO returned +10.92% while QQQ returned +26.23%. Year to date, LEO is up 0.05% versus a gain of 16.23% for QQQ.
Over three years, LEO compounded at +6.99% per year against +25.75% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are -3.88% and +14.78% respectively. Across the full 27-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.02% annualized vs -0.64%. 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 12.7% for LEO. 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 -58.0% for LEO 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 0.15. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LEO charges 0.98% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $98 vs $18 annually, a gap of $80 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LEO currently yields 4.49% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
LEO and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 256 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, LEO or QQQ?
LEO has an expense ratio of 0.98% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $80 per year of difference.
Which performed better, LEO or QQQ?
Over the past year LEO returned +10.92% vs +26.23% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (27 years), LEO annualized -0.64% vs +13.02% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, LEO or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 12.7% for LEO. Worst drawdown: LEO -58.0% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both LEO and QQQ?
LEO and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.15, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between LEO and QQQ?
LEO and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 256 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, LEO or QQQ?
LEO yields 4.49% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so LEO 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.