QQQ vs TGRW
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF
Which is better, QQQ or TGRW?
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 0.97. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.2%.
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 | TGRW |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.52% |
| AUM | $483.5B | $1.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 107 | 69 |
| YTD Return | +17.95%Best | +3.65% |
| 1Y Return | +21.77%Best | +4.94% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.63%Best | +19.25% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.24%Best | +7.62% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.1% | 20.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.1%Best | -43.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,324Best | $14,437 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.5%Best | 60.2% |
| 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 TGRW 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 TGRW Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Over the past year QQQ returned +21.77% while TGRW returned +4.94%. Year to date, QQQ is up 17.95% versus a gain of 3.65% for TGRW.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +25.63% per year against +19.25% for TGRW; over five years the annualized figures are +15.24% and +7.62% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +17.97% annualized vs +10.99%.
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 20.0% for TGRW. 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 -43.3% for TGRW. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. 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 TGRW charges 0.52%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $52 annually, a gap of $34 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.44% against 0.00% for TGRW.
Holdings Overlap
62.1% of QQQ's money is in holdings TGRW also owns. 69.2% of TGRW's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
27 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 70 in TGRW, against full books of 107 and 69.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 37 positions for TGRW that do not appear in our book for QQQ (24.0% of the fund), and 70 for QQQ that do not appear in TGRW (36.3%).
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 TGRW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 14.71% | 6.27% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.36% | 12.21% | 8.85% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.27% | 6.44% | 0.83% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.76% | 5.36% | 0.40% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.16% | 6.24% | 3.08% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.43% | 2.66% | 1.77% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.45% | 3.47% | 0.02% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.67% | 1.65% | 3.02% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.78% | 3.30% | 0.52% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.56% | 2.09% | 0.47% |
69.2% of TGRW 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 TGRW?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while TGRW charges 0.52%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $34 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or TGRW?
Over the past year QQQ returned +21.77% vs +4.94% for TGRW, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), QQQ annualized +17.97% vs +10.99% for TGRW. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or TGRW?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 20.1% annualized versus 20.0% for TGRW. Worst drawdown: QQQ -35.1% vs TGRW -43.3%.
Should I hold both QQQ and TGRW?
QQQ and TGRW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 TGRW?
69.2% of TGRW's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 69.2% of TGRW's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 27 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 70 in TGRW.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or TGRW?
QQQ yields 0.44% while TGRW yields 0.00%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TGRW 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 0.97. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.