QQQ vs RSDE
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs FT Vest US Equity Equal Weight Buffer ETF - December
Which is better, QQQ or RSDE?
Large Cap Growth against Multi Alternative.
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 | QQQ | RSDE |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.85% |
| AUM | $483.5B | $31M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 107 | 10 |
| YTD Return | +17.95%Best | +8.30% |
| 1Y Return | +21.77%Best | +10.65% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.63% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.24% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.5% | 6.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -22.8% | -10.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.7 years | $13,806Best | $11,779 |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Equity | Alternative |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Dec 20, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 23, 2024 to Sep 18, 2026 (1.7 years).
QQQ vs RSDE 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 1.7 years both funds cover.
QQQ vs RSDE Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and FT Vest US Equity Equal Weight Buffer ETF - December (RSDE) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year QQQ returned +21.77% while RSDE returned +10.65%. Year to date, QQQ is up 17.95% versus a gain of 8.30% for RSDE.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.5% compared with 6.2% for RSDE. 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 -22.8% for QQQ and -10.8% for RSDE. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.58. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QQQ charges 0.18% per year while RSDE charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $85 annually, a gap of $67 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.44% against 0.00% for RSDE.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QQQ and RSDE 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, QQQ or RSDE?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while RSDE charges 0.85%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $67 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or RSDE?
Over the past year QQQ returned +21.77% vs +10.65% for RSDE, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), QQQ annualized +20.89% vs +10.11% for RSDE. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or RSDE?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 19.5% annualized versus 6.2% for RSDE. Worst drawdown: QQQ -22.8% vs RSDE -10.8%.
Should I hold both QQQ and RSDE?
QQQ and RSDE have a monthly-return correlation of 0.58, 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, QQQ or RSDE?
QQQ yields 0.44% while RSDE yields 0.00%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RSDE better than QQQ?
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.