LIT vs QQQ
Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, LIT or QQQ?
QQQ has been ahead.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 65.3%.
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 | LIT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $1.6B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.66% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 45 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +3.48% | +20.41%Best |
| 1Y Return | +21.70% | +23.46%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.34% | +27.85%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -2.39% | +16.07%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 28.4% | 17.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -65.9% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $8,861 | $21,067Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 65.3% | 46.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jul 22, 2010 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 23, 2010 to Sep 28, 2026 (16.2 years).
LIT 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 16.2 years both funds cover.
LIT vs QQQ Performance
Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year LIT returned +21.70% while QQQ returned +23.46%. Year to date, LIT is up 3.48% versus a gain of 20.41% for QQQ.
Over three years, LIT compounded at +8.34% per year against +27.85% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are -2.39% and +16.07% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.92% annualized vs +5.03%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LIT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 28.4% compared with 17.5% 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 -65.9% for LIT 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 0.62. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LIT charges 0.75% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $18 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LIT currently yields 0.66% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
4.0% of LIT's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 2.6% of QQQ's money is in holdings LIT also owns.
LIT and QQQ share little of their money.
1 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in LIT and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 45 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 95 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for LIT (95.0% of the fund), and 4 for LIT that do not appear in QQQ (29.3%).
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 LIT | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.98% | 2.56% | 1.42% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LIT 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, LIT or QQQ?
LIT has an expense ratio of 0.75% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LIT or QQQ?
Over the past year LIT returned +21.70% vs +23.46% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), LIT annualized +5.03% vs +18.92% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LIT or QQQ?
LIT has been the more volatile fund at 28.4% annualized versus 17.5% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: LIT -65.9% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both LIT and QQQ?
LIT and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.62, 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 LIT and QQQ?
4.0% of LIT's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 2.6% of QQQ's is in holdings LIT also owns. They hold 1 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in LIT and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, LIT or QQQ?
LIT yields 0.66% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so LIT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than LIT?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 65.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.