MODL vs QQQ
VictoryShares WestEnd US Sector ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, MODL or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. MODL is less concentrated, with 34.1% 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 | MODL | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.46% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $1.1B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.66% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 363 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +10.62% | +17.95%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.48% | +21.77%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.35% | +25.63%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.24% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.4%Best | 18.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -17.6%Best | -22.8% |
| $10,000 over 3.9 years | $21,620 | $27,846Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 34.1%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Oct 11, 2022 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 12, 2022 to Sep 18, 2026 (3.9 years).
MODL 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 3.9 years both funds cover.
MODL vs QQQ Performance
VictoryShares WestEnd US Sector ETF (MODL) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc. and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year MODL returned +14.48% while QQQ returned +21.77%. Year to date, MODL is up 10.62% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.
Over three years, MODL compounded at +20.35% per year against +25.63% for QQQ. Across the full 4-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +30.03% annualized vs +21.86%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.1% compared with 12.4% for MODL. 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 -17.6% for MODL 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MODL charges 0.46% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $46 vs $18 annually, a gap of $28 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MODL currently yields 0.66% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
46.3% of MODL's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 85.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings MODL also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside MODL. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
72 positions in common, counted across the 361 positions we hold weights for in MODL and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 363 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 24 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for MODL (11.8% of the fund), and 276 for MODL that do not appear in QQQ (51.7%).
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 MODL | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 6.41% | 8.44% | 2.03% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.02% | 7.27% | 1.25% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.62% | 5.76% | 1.14% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.05% | 4.67% | 2.62% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.08% | 3.36% | 0.28% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.66% | 3.13% | 0.47% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.33% | 4.43% | 3.10% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.21% | 3.16% | 0.95% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.98% | 2.78% | 0.80% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.94% | 3.45% | 2.51% |
85.8% of QQQ is already inside MODL.
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, MODL or QQQ?
MODL has an expense ratio of 0.46% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $28 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, MODL or QQQ?
Over the past year MODL returned +14.48% vs +21.77% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), MODL annualized +21.86% vs +30.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, MODL or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.1% annualized versus 12.4% for MODL. Worst drawdown: MODL -17.6% vs QQQ -22.8%.
Should I hold both MODL and QQQ?
MODL and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between MODL and QQQ?
85.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings MODL also owns. 85.8% of QQQ's is in holdings MODL also owns. They hold 72 positions in common, counted across the 361 positions we hold weights for in MODL and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, MODL or QQQ?
MODL yields 0.66% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so MODL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than MODL?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. MODL is less concentrated, with 34.1% 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.