NMAY vs QQQ
Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, NMAY or QQQ?
Option Writing against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | NMAY | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $58M | $498.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 18 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +9.41% | +22.67%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.46% | +24.33%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +29.05% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +17.00% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.4%Best | 18.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -3.8%Best | -12.0% |
| $10,000 over 1.4 years | $12,268 | $15,567Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 1, 2025 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 1, 2025 to Oct 2, 2026 (1.4 years).
NMAY 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 1.4 years both funds cover.
NMAY vs QQQ Performance
Innovator Growth-100 Power Buffer ETF - May (NMAY) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year NMAY returned +11.46% while QQQ returned +24.33%. Year to date, NMAY is up 9.41% versus a gain of 22.67% for QQQ.
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 4.4% for NMAY. 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 -3.8% for NMAY and -12.0% 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 0.80. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NMAY charges 0.79% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $18 annually, a gap of $61 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NMAY currently yields 0.00% against 0.42% for QQQ.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of NMAY and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, NMAY or QQQ?
NMAY has an expense ratio of 0.79% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $61 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NMAY or QQQ?
Over the past year NMAY returned +11.46% vs +24.33% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), NMAY annualized +15.72% vs +37.18% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NMAY or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 4.4% for NMAY. Worst drawdown: NMAY -3.8% vs QQQ -12.0%.
Should I hold both NMAY and QQQ?
NMAY and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.80, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, NMAY or QQQ?
NMAY yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than NMAY?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.