PBUS vs QQQ
Invesco MSCI USA ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, PBUS or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
PBUS has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. PBUS is less concentrated, with 36.9% 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 | PBUS | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.04%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $11.6B | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.03% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 530 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +10.73% | +15.18%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.64% | +19.65%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.75% | +24.60%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.98% | +13.94%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.0%Best | 19.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.2%Best | -35.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,608 | $19,204Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.9%Best | 46.5% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Sep 22, 2017 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 22, 2017 to Sep 15, 2026 (9 years).
PBUS 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 years both funds cover.
PBUS vs QQQ Performance
Invesco MSCI USA ETF (PBUS) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year PBUS returned +14.64% while QQQ returned +19.65%. Year to date, PBUS is up 10.73% versus a gain of 15.18% for QQQ.
Over three years, PBUS compounded at +20.75% per year against +24.60% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +11.98% and +13.94% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +19.74% annualized vs +14.78%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.9% compared with 16.0% for PBUS. 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 -33.2% for PBUS 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 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PBUS charges 0.04% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $4 vs $18 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PBUS currently yields 1.03% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
51.7% of PBUS's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 91.9% of QQQ's money is in holdings PBUS also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside PBUS. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
89 positions in common, counted across the 500 positions we hold weights for in PBUS and 102 in QQQ, against full books of 530 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for PBUS (5.6% of the fund), and 398 for PBUS that do not appear in QQQ (45.6%).
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 PBUS | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.70% | 8.44% | 0.74% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.03% | 7.27% | 0.24% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.41% | 5.76% | 0.35% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.80% | 4.67% | 0.87% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 2.98% | 3.36% | 0.38% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 4.43% | 2.80% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.52% | 3.16% | 0.64% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.34% | 3.13% | 0.79% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 2.78% | 0.88% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.56% | 2.56% | 1.00% |
91.9% of QQQ is already inside PBUS.
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, PBUS or QQQ?
PBUS has an expense ratio of 0.04% while QQQ charges 0.18%. PBUS is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PBUS or QQQ?
Over the past year PBUS returned +14.64% vs +19.65% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), PBUS annualized +14.78% vs +19.74% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PBUS or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 19.9% annualized versus 16.0% for PBUS. Worst drawdown: PBUS -33.2% vs QQQ -35.1%.
Should I hold both PBUS and QQQ?
PBUS and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 PBUS and QQQ?
91.9% of QQQ's money is in holdings PBUS also owns. 91.9% of QQQ's is in holdings PBUS also owns. They hold 89 positions in common, counted across the 500 positions we hold weights for in PBUS and 102 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, PBUS or QQQ?
PBUS yields 1.03% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so PBUS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than PBUS?
PBUS has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. PBUS is less concentrated, with 36.9% 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.