QQQ vs RECS
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
Which is better, QQQ or RECS?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
RECS has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. RECS is less concentrated, with 41.2% 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 | QQQ | RECS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.15%Best |
| AUM | $483.5B | $6.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 1.00% |
| Holdings | 107 | 368 |
| YTD Return | +15.21%Best | +9.35% |
| 1Y Return | +19.78%Best | +14.73% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +24.58%Best | +21.32% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.93%Best | +13.19% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.2% | 16.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -53.5% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,195Best | $18,580 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.5% | 41.2%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 15, 2001 to Sep 16, 2026 (25.1 years).
QQQ vs RECS 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.
QQQ vs RECS Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Over the past year QQQ returned +19.78% while RECS returned +14.73%. Year to date, QQQ is up 15.21% versus a gain of 9.35% for RECS.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +24.58% per year against +21.32% for RECS; over five years the annualized figures are +13.93% and +13.19% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +12.36% annualized vs +3.95%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.2% compared with 16.5% for RECS. 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 -53.5% for QQQ and -34.3% for RECS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QQQ charges 0.18% per year while RECS charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $15 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.44% against 1.00% for RECS.
Holdings Overlap
42.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings RECS also owns. 42.6% of RECS's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
32 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 349 in RECS, against full books of 107 and 368.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 303 positions for RECS that do not appear in our book for QQQ (55.1% of the fund), and 64 for QQQ that do not appear in RECS (55.1%).
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 QQQ | Weight in RECS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 12.00% | 3.56% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.27% | 11.74% | 4.47% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.78% | 4.63% | 1.85% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.43% | 2.19% | 2.24% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 2.10% | 1.03% | 1.07% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.60% | 1.00% | 0.60% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 1.86% | 0.66% | 1.20% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp 3.125 06/15/2060 | 1.69% | 0.71% | 0.98% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 1.30% | 0.67% | 0.63% |
| SBUXStarbucks Corp | 0.53% | 1.05% | 0.52% |
42.6% of RECS 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, QQQ or RECS?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while RECS charges 0.15%. RECS is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or RECS?
Over the past year QQQ returned +19.78% vs +14.73% for RECS, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), QQQ annualized +12.36% vs +3.95% for RECS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or RECS?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 20.2% annualized versus 16.5% for RECS. Worst drawdown: QQQ -53.5% vs RECS -34.3%.
Should I hold both QQQ and RECS?
QQQ and RECS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, 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 QQQ and RECS?
42.6% of RECS's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 42.6% of RECS's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 32 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 349 in RECS.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or RECS?
QQQ yields 0.44% while RECS yields 1.00%, so RECS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECS better than QQQ?
RECS has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. RECS is less concentrated, with 41.2% 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.