QQQ vs TIH

QQQ vs TIH

Which is better, QQQ or TIH?

Large Cap Growth against All Cap Blend.

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. TIH is less concentrated, with 39.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.2%.

Lower Fees: QQQLess Concentrated: TIH

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

MetricQQQTIH
Expense Ratio0.18%Best1.00%
AUM$498.6B$647M
Dividend Yield0.42%0.00%
Holdings321137
YTD Return+22.67%Best-0.43%
1Y Return+24.33%-
3Y Return (annualized)+29.05%-
5Y Return (annualized)+17.00%-
Top 10 Weight47.2%39.0%Best
Fund FamilyInvesco (US)Investment House Funds
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthAll Cap Blend
InceptionMar 10, 1999Aug 5, 2026

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

QQQ vs TIH 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 TIH Performance

Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and The Investment House ETF (TIH) is an ETF from Investment House Funds. Year to date, QQQ is up 22.67% versus a loss of 0.43% for TIH.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

QQQ charges 0.18% per year while TIH charges 1.00%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $100 annually, a gap of $82 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.42% against 0.00% for TIH.

Holdings Overlap

QQQ already in TIH73.3%
TIH already in QQQ50.8%

73.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings TIH also owns. 50.8% of TIH's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.

Most of QQQ is already inside TIH. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

39 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 137 in TIH, against full books of 321 and 137.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 67 positions for TIH that do not appear in our book for QQQ (45.6% of the fund), and 58 for QQQ that do not appear in TIH (25.1%).

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

StockWeight in QQQWeight in TIHDifference
NVDANvidia Corp8.45%4.55%3.90%
AAPLApple, Inc7.80%4.89%2.91%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp5.88%4.33%1.55%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc4.41%3.40%1.01%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A3.15%4.54%1.39%
METAMeta Platforms Inc3.07%3.96%0.89%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.4.85%0.59%4.26%
AVGOBroadcom Inc2.74%2.49%0.25%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C2.93%2.27%0.66%
COSTCostco Wholesale Corp.1.77%3.09%1.32%

73.3% of QQQ is already inside TIH.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

QQQTIH

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, QQQ or TIH?

QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while TIH charges 1.00%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $82 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between QQQ and TIH?

73.3% of QQQ's money is in holdings TIH also owns. 50.8% of TIH's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 39 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 137 in TIH.

Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or TIH?

QQQ yields 0.42% while TIH yields 0.00%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is TIH better than QQQ?

QQQ has a lower expense ratio. TIH is less concentrated, with 39.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.