MUC vs QQQ
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund, Inc vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 103 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | MUC | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.82% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $1.4B | $455.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.40% | 0.41% | |
| Holdings | 213 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +5.17% | +19.68% | |
| 1Y Return | +11.39% | +26.75% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +6.63% | +26.25% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -2.86% | +15.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.8% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.6% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Tax Preferred | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 27, 1998 | Mar 10, 1999 |
MUC vs QQQ Performance
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund, Inc (MUC) is a ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year MUC returned +11.39% while QQQ returned +26.75%. Year to date, MUC is up 5.17% versus a gain of 19.68% for QQQ.
Over three years, MUC compounded at +6.63% per year against +26.25% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are -2.86% and +15.39% respectively. Across the full 27-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.15% annualized vs -0.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 12.8% for MUC. 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 -56.6% for MUC and -83.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.21. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MUC charges 2.82% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $282 vs $18 annually, a gap of $264 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MUC currently yields 5.40% against 0.41% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
MUC and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 187 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, MUC or QQQ?
MUC has an expense ratio of 2.82% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $264 per year of difference.
Which performed better, MUC or QQQ?
Over the past year MUC returned +11.39% vs +26.75% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (27 years), MUC annualized -0.16% vs +13.15% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, MUC or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 12.8% for MUC. Worst drawdown: MUC -56.6% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both MUC and QQQ?
MUC and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.21, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between MUC and QQQ?
MUC and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 187 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, MUC or QQQ?
MUC yields 5.40% while QQQ yields 0.41%, so MUC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.