NULG vs QQQ
Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, NULG or QQQ?
QQQ has been ahead.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. NULG is less concentrated, with 44.5% 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 | NULG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.26% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $2.9B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.10% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 71 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +12.81% | +17.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.38% | +22.10%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.50% | +25.27%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.31% | +14.60%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.8%Best | 19.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -36.2% | -35.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,087 | $19,766Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 44.5%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Nuveen | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 13, 2016 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 14, 2016 to Sep 17, 2026 (9.8 years).
NULG 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 9.8 years both funds cover.
NULG vs QQQ Performance
Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF (NULG) is an ETF from Nuveen and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year NULG returned +12.38% while QQQ returned +22.10%. Year to date, NULG is up 12.81% versus a gain of 17.21% for QQQ.
Over three years, NULG compounded at +21.50% per year against +25.27% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +11.31% and +14.60% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +20.48% annualized vs +18.08%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.2% compared with 18.8% for NULG. 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 -36.2% for NULG 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 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NULG charges 0.26% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $26 vs $18 annually, a gap of $8 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NULG currently yields 0.10% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
53.8% of NULG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 29.0% of QQQ's money is in holdings NULG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
21 positions in common, counted across the 75 positions we hold weights for in NULG and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 71 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 75 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for NULG (68.6% of the fund), and 53 for NULG that do not appear in QQQ (44.3%).
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 NULG | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 16.79% | 8.44% | 8.35% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 6.00% | 3.16% | 2.84% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.36% | 3.45% | 0.09% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 2.18% | 1.86% | 0.32% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 2.30% | 1.69% | 0.61% |
| NFLXNetflix, Inc. | 2.37% | 1.37% | 1.00% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 1.99% | 1.30% | 0.69% |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings Plc | 1.78% | 0.83% | 0.95% |
| WDCWestern Digital Corp Company Guar 11/28 3 | 1.65% | 0.79% | 0.86% |
| BKNGBooking Holdings, Inc. | 1.67% | 0.70% | 0.97% |
53.8% of NULG 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, NULG or QQQ?
NULG has an expense ratio of 0.26% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $8 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NULG or QQQ?
Over the past year NULG returned +12.38% vs +22.10% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), NULG annualized +18.08% vs +20.48% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NULG or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 19.2% annualized versus 18.8% for NULG. Worst drawdown: NULG -36.2% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both NULG and QQQ?
NULG and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, 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 NULG and QQQ?
53.8% of NULG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 29.0% of QQQ's is in holdings NULG also owns. They hold 21 positions in common, counted across the 75 positions we hold weights for in NULG and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, NULG or QQQ?
NULG yields 0.10% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than NULG?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. NULG is less concentrated, with 44.5% 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.