LIMI vs QQQ
Themes Lithium & Battery Metal Miners ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, LIMI or QQQ?
Precious Metals against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. LIMI led over 1Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.9%.
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 | LIMI | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $2M | $498.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.40% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 52 | 321 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 40.4% | 18.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -43.8% | -22.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 2 years | $16,284Best | $15,463 |
| Top 10 Weight | 52.9% | 47.2%Best |
| Fund Family | Themes ETFs | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Commodity | Equity |
| Style | Precious Metals | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Sep 23, 2024 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
The two price series end 11 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. LIMI has data through Sep 21, 2026 and QQQ through Oct 2, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 24, 2024 to Sep 21, 2026 (2 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LIMI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 40.4% compared with 18.6% 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 -43.8% for LIMI 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 0.41. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LIMI charges 0.35% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $18 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LIMI currently yields 0.40% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 42 holdings in LIMI and 102 in QQQ, totalling 100.0% and 99.9% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 42 positions we hold weights for in LIMI and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 52 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 96 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for LIMI (97.8% of the fund), and 3 for LIMI that do not appear in QQQ (9.6%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LIMI 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, LIMI or QQQ?
LIMI has an expense ratio of 0.35% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, LIMI or QQQ?
LIMI has been the more volatile fund at 40.4% annualized versus 18.6% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: LIMI -43.8% vs QQQ -22.8%.
Should I hold both LIMI and QQQ?
LIMI and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.41, 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, LIMI or QQQ?
LIMI yields 0.40% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than LIMI?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. LIMI led over 1Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.