MTUM vs QQQ
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, MTUM or QQQ?
Each has led over a different period.
MTUM has a lower expense ratio. MTUM led over 1Y and 3Y, QQQ over 5Y and the full window. MTUM is less concentrated, with 35.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.2%.
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 | MTUM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $20.4B | $498.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.62% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 129 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +27.08%Best | +21.44% |
| 1Y Return | +25.85%Best | +23.58% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +32.85%Best | +27.86% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.81% | +16.25%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.6%Best | 17.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.1%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,094 | $21,231Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.2%Best | 47.2% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Apr 16, 2013 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 18, 2013 to Oct 1, 2026 (13.5 years).
MTUM 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 13.5 years both funds cover.
MTUM vs QQQ Performance
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year MTUM returned +25.85% while QQQ returned +23.58%. Year to date, MTUM is up 27.08% versus a gain of 21.44% for QQQ.
Over three years, MTUM compounded at +32.85% per year against +27.86% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +13.81% and +16.25% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +19.85% annualized vs +15.15%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.8% compared with 16.6% for MTUM. 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 -34.1% for MTUM 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 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MTUM charges 0.15% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $18 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MTUM currently yields 0.62% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
49.8% of MTUM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 34.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings MTUM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
29 positions in common, counted across the 126 positions we hold weights for in MTUM and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 129 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 67 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for MTUM (63.3% of the fund), and 91 for MTUM that do not appear in QQQ (49.3%).
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 MTUM | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 5.13% | 4.85% | 0.28% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 5.46% | 3.71% | 1.75% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 4.20% | 2.28% | 1.92% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 2.70% | 3.15% | 0.45% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 3.58% | 1.95% | 1.63% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.14% | 2.93% | 0.79% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 2.85% | 1.60% | 1.25% |
| SNDKSandisk Corp/De | 2.96% | 1.07% | 1.89% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 2.28% | 1.64% | 0.64% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 2.32% | 1.19% | 1.13% |
49.8% of MTUM 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, MTUM or QQQ?
MTUM has an expense ratio of 0.15% while QQQ charges 0.18%. MTUM is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, MTUM or QQQ?
Over the past year MTUM returned +25.85% vs +23.58% for QQQ, so MTUM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), MTUM annualized +15.15% vs +19.85% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, MTUM or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.8% annualized versus 16.6% for MTUM. Worst drawdown: MTUM -34.1% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both MTUM and QQQ?
MTUM and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, 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 MTUM and QQQ?
49.8% of MTUM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 34.5% of QQQ's is in holdings MTUM also owns. They hold 29 positions in common, counted across the 126 positions we hold weights for in MTUM and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, MTUM or QQQ?
MTUM yields 0.62% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so MTUM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than MTUM?
MTUM has a lower expense ratio. MTUM led over 1Y and 3Y, QQQ over 5Y and the full window. MTUM is less concentrated, with 35.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.