QQQ vs TCHP
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF
Which is better, QQQ or TCHP?
Nearly the same fund. QQQ costs less.
QQQ 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 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.7%.
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 | TCHP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.57% |
| AUM | $483.5B | $2.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 107 | 65 |
| YTD Return | +17.95%Best | +1.75% |
| 1Y Return | +21.77%Best | +3.98% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.63%Best | +21.54% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.24%Best | +9.00% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.1% | 19.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.1%Best | -42.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,324Best | $15,386 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.5%Best | 56.7% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | T.Rowe Price |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Aug 4, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 5, 2020 to Sep 18, 2026 (6.1 years).
QQQ vs TCHP 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 6.1 years both funds cover.
QQQ vs TCHP Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Over the past year QQQ returned +21.77% while TCHP returned +3.98%. Year to date, QQQ is up 17.95% versus a gain of 1.75% for TCHP.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +25.63% per year against +21.54% for TCHP; over five years the annualized figures are +15.24% and +9.00% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +17.97% annualized vs +12.00%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.1% compared with 19.8% for TCHP. 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 -42.3% for TCHP. 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 TCHP charges 0.57%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $57 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.44% against 0.00% for TCHP.
Holdings Overlap
67.1% of QQQ's money is in holdings TCHP also owns. 76.5% of TCHP's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
Most of TCHP is already inside QQQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
35 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 65 in TCHP, against full books of 107 and 65.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 28 positions for TCHP that do not appear in our book for QQQ (21.7% of the fund), and 63 for QQQ that do not appear in TCHP (31.9%).
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 TCHP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 15.94% | 7.50% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.27% | 4.54% | 2.73% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.76% | 4.38% | 1.38% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 3.13% | 6.31% | 3.18% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.36% | 5.85% | 2.49% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.16% | 5.96% | 2.80% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.67% | 3.32% | 1.35% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.45% | 3.64% | 0.19% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.43% | 2.61% | 1.82% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.78% | 3.51% | 0.73% |
76.5% of TCHP 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 TCHP?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while TCHP charges 0.57%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or TCHP?
Over the past year QQQ returned +21.77% vs +3.98% for TCHP, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), QQQ annualized +17.97% vs +12.00% for TCHP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or TCHP?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 20.1% annualized versus 19.8% for TCHP. Worst drawdown: QQQ -35.1% vs TCHP -42.3%.
Should I hold both QQQ and TCHP?
QQQ and TCHP 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 TCHP?
76.5% of TCHP's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 76.5% of TCHP's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 35 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 65 in TCHP.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or TCHP?
QQQ yields 0.44% while TCHP yields 0.00%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TCHP better than QQQ?
QQQ 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 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.