MBSF vs QQQ

MBSF vs QQQ

Which is better, MBSF or QQQ?

Bank Loan against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns: QQQ

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

MetricMBSFQQQ
Expense Ratio0.49%0.18%Best
AUM$247M$483.5B
Dividend Yield4.37%0.44%
Holdings416107
YTD Return+2.69%+17.95%Best
1Y Return+4.74%+21.77%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+25.63%
5Y Return (annualized)-+15.24%
Volatility (annualized)1.4%Best17.3%
Max Drawdown-1.0%Best-22.8%
$10,000 over 2.6 years$11,530$16,953Best
Fund FamilyRegan CapitalInvesco (US)
CategoryFixed IncomeEquity
StyleBank LoanLarge Cap Growth
InceptionFeb 27, 2024Mar 10, 1999

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 28, 2024 to Sep 18, 2026 (2.6 years).

MBSF 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 2.6 years both funds cover.

MBSF vs QQQ Performance

REGAN FLOATING RATE MBS ETF (MBSF) is an ETF from Regan Capital and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year MBSF returned +4.74% while QQQ returned +21.77%. Year to date, MBSF is up 2.69% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 1.4% for MBSF. 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 -1.0% for MBSF 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 0.27. They move largely independently of each other.

Fees and Cost Over Time

MBSF charges 0.49% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $18 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MBSF currently yields 4.37% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

We hold position weights for 26 holdings in MBSF and 102 in QQQ, totalling 9.6% 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 26 positions we hold weights for in MBSF and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 416 and 107.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of MBSF and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

MBSFQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, MBSF or QQQ?

MBSF has an expense ratio of 0.49% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, MBSF or QQQ?

Over the past year MBSF returned +4.74% vs +21.77% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, MBSF or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 1.4% for MBSF. Worst drawdown: MBSF -1.0% vs QQQ -22.8%.

Should I hold both MBSF and QQQ?

MBSF and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.27, 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, MBSF or QQQ?

MBSF yields 4.37% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so MBSF currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than MBSF?

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.