NIE vs QQQ

NIE vs QQQ

Which is better, NIE or QQQ?

Equity-oriented Balanced against Large Cap Growth.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. NIE is less concentrated, with 28.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.

Lower Fees: QQQHigher Returns: QQQLess Concentrated: NIE

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

MetricNIEQQQ
Expense Ratio1.07%0.18%Best
AUM$793M$483.5B
Dividend Yield9.01%0.44%
Holdings196107
YTD Return+7.39%+17.21%Best
1Y Return+12.73%+22.10%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+18.09%+25.27%Best
5Y Return (annualized)+9.01%+14.60%Best
Volatility (annualized)17.6%Best18.8%
Max Drawdown-63.8%-53.5%Best
$10,000 over 5 years$15,393$19,766Best
Top 10 Weight28.3%Best46.5%
Fund FamilyVirtus Investment PartnersInvesco (US)
CategoryAllocation/BalancedEquity
StyleEquity-oriented BalancedLarge Cap Growth
InceptionFeb 27, 2007Mar 10, 1999

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 23, 2007 to Sep 17, 2026 (19.6 years).

NIE 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.

NIE vs QQQ Performance

Virtus Equity & Convertible Income Fund (NIE) is an ETF from Virtus Investment Partners and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year NIE returned +12.73% while QQQ returned +22.10%. Year to date, NIE is up 7.39% versus a gain of 17.21% for QQQ.

Over three years, NIE compounded at +18.09% per year against +25.27% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +9.01% and +14.60% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +15.36% annualized vs +3.44%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 17.6% for NIE. 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 -63.8% for NIE and -53.5% 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

NIE charges 1.07% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $107 vs $18 annually, a gap of $89 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NIE currently yields 9.01% against 0.44% for QQQ.

Holdings Overlap

NIE already in QQQ39.2%
QQQ already in NIE65.7%

39.2% of NIE's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 65.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings NIE also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

The two holdings books were reported 159 days apart, NIE as of Feb 27, 2026 and QQQ as of Aug 5, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

31 positions in common, counted across the 161 positions we hold weights for in NIE and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 196 and 107.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 65 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for NIE (31.8% of the fund), and 125 for NIE that do not appear in QQQ (55.4%).

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

StockWeight in NIEWeight in QQQDifference
NVDANvidia Corp5.65%8.44%2.79%
AAPLApple, Inc4.55%7.27%2.72%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp3.16%5.76%2.60%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc2.52%4.67%2.15%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A3.52%3.36%0.16%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.1.06%4.43%3.37%
AVGOBroadcom Inc1.84%3.16%1.32%
METAMeta Platforms Inc1.47%2.78%1.31%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc0.32%3.45%3.13%
GOOGAlphabet Inc0.50%3.13%2.63%

65.7% of QQQ is already inside NIE.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

NIEQQQ

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, NIE or QQQ?

NIE has an expense ratio of 1.07% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $89 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, NIE or QQQ?

Over the past year NIE returned +12.73% vs +22.10% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), NIE annualized +3.44% vs +15.36% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, NIE or QQQ?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 17.6% for NIE. Worst drawdown: NIE -63.8% vs QQQ -53.5%.

Should I hold both NIE and QQQ?

NIE 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 NIE and QQQ?

65.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings NIE also owns. 65.7% of QQQ's is in holdings NIE also owns. They hold 31 positions in common, counted across the 161 positions we hold weights for in NIE and 102 in QQQ.

Which pays a higher dividend, NIE or QQQ?

NIE yields 9.01% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so NIE currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is QQQ better than NIE?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. NIE is less concentrated, with 28.3% 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.