MFIG vs QQQ
Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, MFIG or QQQ?
QQQ costs less.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. MFIG is less concentrated, with 43.3% 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 | MFIG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $12M | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 102 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +7.50% | +17.95%Best |
| 1Y Return | - | +21.77% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +25.63% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.24% |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.3%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Motley Fool Asset Management | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 8, 2025 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
MFIG 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
MFIG vs QQQ Performance
Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF (MFIG) is an ETF from Motley Fool Asset Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Year to date, MFIG is up 7.50% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MFIG charges 0.50% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $18 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MFIG currently yields 0.00% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
61.4% of MFIG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 31.2% of QQQ's money is in holdings MFIG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
23 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in MFIG and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 102 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Measured across the 100 and 102 positions we hold weights for.
QQQ holds 73 positions MFIG does not, 66.3% of the fund.
Largest: MSFT 5.76%, AMZN 4.67%, MU 4.43%, AMD 3.45%, GOOGL 3.36%
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in MFIG | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 4.95% | 8.44% | 3.49% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.99% | 7.27% | 2.28% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 5.01% | 2.78% | 2.23% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 4.41% | 3.13% | 1.28% |
| NFLXNetflix, Inc. | 5.16% | 1.37% | 3.79% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 4.08% | 0.94% | 3.14% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 3.21% | 1.69% | 1.52% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 3.61% | 0.72% | 2.89% |
| ADBEAdobe Systems | 3.42% | 0.46% | 2.96% |
| ISRGIntuitive Surgical Inc. | 2.51% | 0.58% | 1.93% |
61.4% of MFIG is already inside QQQ.
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, MFIG or QQQ?
MFIG has an expense ratio of 0.50% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between MFIG and QQQ?
61.4% of MFIG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 31.2% of QQQ's is in holdings MFIG also owns. They hold 23 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in MFIG and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, MFIG or QQQ?
MFIG yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than MFIG?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. MFIG is less concentrated, with 43.3% 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.