QQQ vs SPIT
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs F/m Emerald Special Situations ETF
Which is better, QQQ or SPIT?
SPIT has been ahead.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. SPIT led over 1Y. SPIT is less concentrated, with 35.1% 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 | SPIT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.89% |
| AUM | $483.5B | $33M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 5.85% |
| Holdings | 107 | 50 |
| YTD Return | +21.16%Best | +17.71% |
| 1Y Return | +24.78% | +26.40%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.95% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.36% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.5% | 35.1%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | F-m investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Oct 6, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
QQQ vs SPIT 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 SPIT Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and F/m Emerald Special Situations ETF (SPIT) is an ETF from F-m investments. Over the past year QQQ returned +24.78% while SPIT returned +26.40%. Year to date, QQQ is up 21.16% versus a gain of 17.71% for SPIT.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QQQ charges 0.18% per year while SPIT charges 0.89%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $89 annually, a gap of $71 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.44% against 5.85% for SPIT.
Holdings Overlap
13.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings SPIT also owns. 10.8% of SPIT's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
QQQ and SPIT share little of their money.
4 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 45 in SPIT, against full books of 107 and 50.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 39 positions for SPIT that do not appear in our book for QQQ (86.2% of the fund), and 92 for QQQ that do not appear in SPIT (83.7%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QQQ and SPIT 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 SPIT?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while SPIT charges 0.89%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $71 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or SPIT?
Over the past year QQQ returned +24.78% vs +26.40% for SPIT, so SPIT leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between QQQ and SPIT?
13.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings SPIT also owns. 10.8% of SPIT's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 4 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 45 in SPIT.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or SPIT?
QQQ yields 0.44% while SPIT yields 5.85%, so SPIT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SPIT better than QQQ?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. SPIT led over 1Y. SPIT is less concentrated, with 35.1% 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.