QQQ vs TRFM
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs AAM Transformers ETF
Which is better, QQQ or TRFM?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over the full window, TRFM over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. TRFM is less concentrated, with 8.2% 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 | TRFM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.49% |
| AUM | $483.5B | $264M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 0.14% |
| Holdings | 107 | 313 |
| YTD Return | +16.87% | +20.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +22.98% | +24.28%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +24.98% | +27.26%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.39% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.0%Best | 23.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -22.8%Best | -28.4% |
| $10,000 over 4.2 years | $25,787Best | $24,925 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.5% | 8.2%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Advisors Asset Management, Inc. |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Jul 11, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 12, 2022 to Sep 11, 2026 (4.2 years).
QQQ vs TRFM 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 4.2 years both funds cover.
QQQ vs TRFM Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) is an ETF from Advisors Asset Management, Inc.. Over the past year QQQ returned +22.98% while TRFM returned +24.28%. Year to date, QQQ is up 16.87% versus a gain of 20.21% for TRFM.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +24.98% per year against +27.26% for TRFM. Across the full 4-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +25.30% annualized vs +24.29%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TRFM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.9% compared with 19.0% 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 -28.4% for TRFM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. 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 TRFM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $49 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.44% against 0.14% for TRFM.
Holdings Overlap
72.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings TRFM also owns. 29.5% of TRFM's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
Most of QQQ is already inside TRFM. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
52 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 309 in TRFM, against full books of 107 and 313.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 201 positions for TRFM that do not appear in our book for QQQ (56.3% of the fund), and 47 for QQQ that do not appear in TRFM (26.5%).
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 TRFM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 8.44% | 0.57% | 7.87% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.27% | 0.55% | 6.72% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.76% | 0.63% | 5.13% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.67% | 0.57% | 4.10% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.43% | 0.57% | 3.86% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 3.45% | 0.54% | 2.91% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.36% | 0.52% | 2.84% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.16% | 0.52% | 2.64% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 2.78% | 0.51% | 2.27% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.56% | 0.45% | 2.11% |
72.8% of QQQ is already inside TRFM.
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 TRFM?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while TRFM charges 0.49%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or TRFM?
Over the past year QQQ returned +22.98% vs +24.28% for TRFM, so TRFM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), QQQ annualized +25.30% vs +24.29% for TRFM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or TRFM?
TRFM has been the more volatile fund at 23.9% annualized versus 19.0% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: QQQ -22.8% vs TRFM -28.4%.
Should I hold both QQQ and TRFM?
QQQ and TRFM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 TRFM?
72.8% of QQQ's money is in holdings TRFM also owns. 29.5% of TRFM's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 52 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 309 in TRFM.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or TRFM?
QQQ yields 0.44% while TRFM yields 0.14%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TRFM better than QQQ?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over the full window, TRFM over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. TRFM is less concentrated, with 8.2% 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.