LGLV vs QQQ
State Street SPDR US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, LGLV or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
LGLV has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. LGLV is less concentrated, with 15.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.
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 | LGLV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.12%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $1.2B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.00% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 174 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +3.75% | +17.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +4.40% | +22.10%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.39% | +25.27%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.69% | +14.60%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.9%Best | 17.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.0% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,484 | $19,766Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 15.9%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | State Street Investment Management | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 20, 2013 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 21, 2013 to Sep 17, 2026 (13.6 years).
LGLV 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 13.6 years both funds cover.
LGLV vs QQQ Performance
State Street SPDR US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF (LGLV) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year LGLV returned +4.40% while QQQ returned +22.10%. Year to date, LGLV is up 3.75% versus a gain of 17.21% for QQQ.
Over three years, LGLV compounded at +11.39% per year against +25.27% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +7.69% and +14.60% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +19.44% annualized vs +9.39%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.7% compared with 12.9% for LGLV. 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 -37.0% for LGLV 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 0.66. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LGLV 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, LGLV currently yields 2.00% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
11.7% of LGLV's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 28.1% of QQQ's money is in holdings LGLV also owns.
QQQ and LGLV share little of their money.
19 positions in common, counted across the 172 positions we hold weights for in LGLV and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 174 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 77 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for LGLV (69.5% of the fund), and 148 for LGLV that do not appear in QQQ (85.9%).
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 LGLV | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.71% | 7.27% | 6.56% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 0.75% | 5.76% | 5.01% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 0.39% | 3.36% | 2.97% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.99% | 2.10% | 1.11% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 0.61% | 2.41% | 1.80% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp. | 0.47% | 1.84% | 1.37% |
| PEPPepsico Inc. | 0.99% | 0.83% | 0.16% |
| LINLinde Plc Ordinary Shares | 0.81% | 1.00% | 0.19% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 0.89% | 0.47% | 0.42% |
| PAYXPaychex, Inc. | 0.89% | 0.19% | 0.70% |
28.1% of QQQ is already inside LGLV.
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, LGLV or QQQ?
LGLV has an expense ratio of 0.12% while QQQ charges 0.18%. LGLV is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LGLV or QQQ?
Over the past year LGLV returned +4.40% vs +22.10% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), LGLV annualized +9.39% vs +19.44% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LGLV or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.7% annualized versus 12.9% for LGLV. Worst drawdown: LGLV -37.0% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both LGLV and QQQ?
LGLV and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between LGLV and QQQ?
28.1% of QQQ's money is in holdings LGLV also owns. 28.1% of QQQ's is in holdings LGLV also owns. They hold 19 positions in common, counted across the 172 positions we hold weights for in LGLV and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, LGLV or QQQ?
LGLV yields 2.00% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so LGLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than LGLV?
LGLV has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. LGLV is less concentrated, with 15.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.