LFGY vs QQQ
YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, LFGY or QQQ?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | LFGY | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.02% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $59M | $437.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 84.72% | 0.43% |
| Holdings | 170 | 208 |
| YTD Return | -15.36% | +7.37%Best |
| 1Y Return | -25.33% | +7.77%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.44% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.19% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.5% | 20.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.9% | -22.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $8,105 | $13,081Best |
| Fund Family | YieldMax ETF | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jan 13, 2025 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 14, 2025 to Nov 6, 2026 (1.8 years).
LFGY 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
LFGY vs QQQ Performance
YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) is an ETF from YieldMax ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year LFGY returned -25.33% while QQQ returned +7.77%. Year to date, LFGY is down 15.36% versus a gain of 7.37% for QQQ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LFGY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.5% compared with 20.7% for QQQ. 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 -35.9% for LFGY and -22.8% 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 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LFGY charges 1.02% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $102 vs $18 annually, a gap of $84 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LFGY currently yields 84.72% against 0.43% for QQQ.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LFGY and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, LFGY or QQQ?
LFGY has an expense ratio of 1.02% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $84 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LFGY or QQQ?
Over the past year LFGY returned -25.33% vs +7.77% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), LFGY annualized -11.02% vs +16.09% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LFGY or QQQ?
LFGY has been the more volatile fund at 35.5% annualized versus 20.7% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: LFGY -35.9% vs QQQ -22.8%.
Should I hold both LFGY and QQQ?
LFGY and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, LFGY or QQQ?
LFGY yields 84.72% while QQQ yields 0.43%, so LFGY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than LFGY?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.