QQQ vs SHOC
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Strive US Semiconductor ETF
Which is better, QQQ or SHOC?
SHOC has been ahead.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. SHOC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 78.2%.
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 | SHOC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.40% |
| AUM | $483.5B | $224M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 0.13% |
| Holdings | 107 | 32 |
| YTD Return | +17.21% | +45.66%Best |
| 1Y Return | +22.10% | +73.79%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.27% | +46.51%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.60% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.1%Best | 32.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -22.8%Best | -37.6% |
| $10,000 over 3.9 years | $25,911 | $41,358Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.5%Best | 78.2% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Strive Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Oct 6, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 6, 2022 to Sep 17, 2026 (3.9 years).
QQQ vs SHOC 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 3.9 years both funds cover.
QQQ vs SHOC Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Strive US Semiconductor ETF (SHOC) is an ETF from Strive Asset Management. Over the past year QQQ returned +22.10% while SHOC returned +73.79%. Year to date, QQQ is up 17.21% versus a gain of 45.66% for SHOC.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +25.27% per year against +46.51% for SHOC. Across the full 4-year window we track, SHOC has the edge at +43.91% annualized vs +27.65%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SHOC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 32.6% compared with 18.1% for QQQ. 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 -37.6% for SHOC. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. 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 SHOC charges 0.40%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $40 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.44% against 0.13% for SHOC.
Holdings Overlap
33.0% of QQQ's money is in holdings SHOC also owns. 95.0% of SHOC's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
Most of SHOC is already inside QQQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
21 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 31 in SHOC, against full books of 107 and 32.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 8 positions for SHOC that do not appear in our book for QQQ (4.1% of the fund), and 76 for QQQ that do not appear in SHOC (65.2%).
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 SHOC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 22.56% | 14.12% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.43% | 13.57% | 9.14% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.16% | 11.05% | 7.89% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.45% | 4.81% | 1.36% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 1.86% | 4.90% | 3.04% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 1.69% | 4.72% | 3.03% |
| ASL:ASAsml Holding Nv Unsponsored Adr Ordinary Shares | 0.68% | 5.00% | 4.32% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 2.23% | 3.42% | 1.19% |
| KLACKla Corp | 1.11% | 4.20% | 3.09% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 1.12% | 3.89% | 2.77% |
95.0% of SHOC 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 SHOC?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while SHOC charges 0.40%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or SHOC?
Over the past year QQQ returned +22.10% vs +73.79% for SHOC, so SHOC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), QQQ annualized +27.65% vs +43.91% for SHOC. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or SHOC?
SHOC has been the more volatile fund at 32.6% annualized versus 18.1% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: QQQ -22.8% vs SHOC -37.6%.
Should I hold both QQQ and SHOC?
QQQ and SHOC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 SHOC?
95.0% of SHOC's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 95.0% of SHOC's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 21 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 31 in SHOC.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or SHOC?
QQQ yields 0.44% while SHOC yields 0.13%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SHOC better than QQQ?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. SHOC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 78.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.