NULC vs QQQ
Nuveen ESG Large-Cap ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, NULC or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. NULC is less concentrated, with 32.5% 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 | NULC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.21% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $72M | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.88% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 138 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +13.42% | +15.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.06% | +19.78%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.23% | +24.58%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.80% | +13.93%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9%Best | 20.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.9%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,959 | $19,195Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.5%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Nuveen | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 3, 2019 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 4, 2019 to Sep 16, 2026 (7.3 years).
NULC 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 7.3 years both funds cover.
NULC vs QQQ Performance
Nuveen ESG Large-Cap ETF (NULC) is an ETF from Nuveen and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year NULC returned +17.06% while QQQ returned +19.78%. Year to date, NULC is up 13.42% versus a gain of 15.21% for QQQ.
Over three years, NULC compounded at +19.23% per year against +24.58% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +9.80% and +13.93% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +21.62% annualized vs +14.93%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.3% compared with 16.9% for NULC. 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 -34.9% for NULC 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NULC charges 0.21% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $21 vs $18 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NULC currently yields 0.88% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
42.2% of NULC's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 42.4% of QQQ's money is in holdings NULC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
31 positions in common, counted across the 128 positions we hold weights for in NULC and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 138 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 65 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for NULC (55.2% of the fund), and 94 for NULC that do not appear in QQQ (57.0%).
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 NULC | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 9.09% | 8.44% | 0.65% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.26% | 5.76% | 0.50% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.55% | 3.16% | 0.39% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.33% | 2.78% | 0.55% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.36% | 3.45% | 1.09% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 1.75% | 2.10% | 0.35% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp 3.125 06/15/2060 | 1.42% | 1.69% | 0.27% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 1.42% | 1.30% | 0.12% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 0.48% | 1.86% | 1.38% |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings Plc | 1.49% | 0.83% | 0.66% |
42.4% of QQQ is already inside NULC.
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, NULC or QQQ?
NULC has an expense ratio of 0.21% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NULC or QQQ?
Over the past year NULC returned +17.06% vs +19.78% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), NULC annualized +14.93% vs +21.62% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NULC or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 20.3% annualized versus 16.9% for NULC. Worst drawdown: NULC -34.9% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both NULC and QQQ?
NULC 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 NULC and QQQ?
42.4% of QQQ's money is in holdings NULC also owns. 42.4% of QQQ's is in holdings NULC also owns. They hold 31 positions in common, counted across the 128 positions we hold weights for in NULC and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, NULC or QQQ?
NULC yields 0.88% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so NULC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than NULC?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. NULC is less concentrated, with 32.5% 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.