QQQ vs SCHG
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Schwab US Large-Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, QQQ or SCHG?
Nearly the same fund. SCHG costs less.
SCHG has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.2%.
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 | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $498.6B | $63.8B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.42% | 0.37% |
| Holdings | 321 | 196 |
| YTD Return | +22.95%Best | +13.42% |
| 1Y Return | +23.60%Best | +13.53% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.53%Best | +25.65% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +16.67%Best | +15.07% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.6% | 16.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.1% | -34.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $21,617Best | $20,175 |
| Top 10 Weight | 47.2%Best | 52.2% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Dec 11, 2009 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 11, 2009 to Oct 9, 2026 (16.8 years).
QQQ vs SCHG 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 16.8 years both funds cover.
QQQ vs SCHG Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Schwab US Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year QQQ returned +23.60% while SCHG returned +13.53%. Year to date, QQQ is up 22.95% versus a gain of 13.42% for SCHG.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +27.53% per year against +25.65% for SCHG; over five years the annualized figures are +16.67% and +15.07% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.58% annualized vs +15.86%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.6% compared with 16.6% for SCHG. 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 -35.1% for QQQ and -34.6% for SCHG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QQQ charges 0.18% per year while SCHG charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $4 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.42% against 0.37% for SCHG.
Holdings Overlap
63.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings SCHG also owns. 67.5% of SCHG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
46 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 193 in SCHG, against full books of 321 and 196.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 142 positions for SCHG that do not appear in our book for QQQ (31.9% of the fund), and 50 for QQQ that do not appear in SCHG (34.1%).
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 SCHG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.45% | 10.70% | 2.25% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.80% | 9.88% | 2.08% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | 7.45% | 1.57% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.41% | 5.09% | 0.68% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.15% | 4.02% | 0.87% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.71% | 2.64% | 1.07% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.74% | 3.47% | 0.73% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.93% | 3.21% | 0.28% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | 2.88% | 0.19% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.92% | 2.39% | 0.53% |
67.5% of SCHG 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 SCHG?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while SCHG charges 0.04%. SCHG is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or SCHG?
Over the past year QQQ returned +23.60% vs +13.53% for SCHG, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), QQQ annualized +18.58% vs +15.86% for SCHG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or SCHG?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 16.6% for SCHG. Worst drawdown: QQQ -35.1% vs SCHG -34.6%.
Should I hold both QQQ and SCHG?
QQQ and SCHG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 QQQ and SCHG?
67.5% of SCHG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 67.5% of SCHG's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 46 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 193 in SCHG.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or SCHG?
QQQ yields 0.42% while SCHG yields 0.37%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHG better than QQQ?
SCHG has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. QQQ is less concentrated, with 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.