QQQ vs VONG

QQQ vs VONG

Which is better, QQQ or VONG?

Nearly the same fund. VONG costs less.

VONG 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 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.4%.

Lower Fees: VONGHigher Returns: QQQLess Concentrated: QQQ

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

MetricQQQVONG
Expense Ratio0.18%0.06%Best
AUM$498.6B$45.9B
Dividend Yield0.42%0.46%
Holdings321374
YTD Return+22.09%Best+8.18%
1Y Return+24.51%Best+9.07%
3Y Return (annualized)+27.61%Best+23.87%
5Y Return (annualized)+16.57%Best+13.79%
Volatility (annualized)17.2%15.8%Best
Max Drawdown-35.1%-32.7%Best
$10,000 over 5 years$21,525Best$19,077
Top 10 Weight47.2%Best56.4%
Fund FamilyInvesco (US)Vanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Growth
InceptionMar 10, 1999Sep 20, 2010

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 22, 2010 to Oct 12, 2026 (16.1 years).

QQQ vs VONG 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 16.1 years both funds cover.

QQQ vs VONG Performance

Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year QQQ returned +24.51% while VONG returned +9.07%. Year to date, QQQ is up 22.09% versus a gain of 8.18% for VONG.

Over three years, QQQ compounded at +27.61% per year against +23.87% for VONG; over five years the annualized figures are +16.57% and +13.79% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +18.78% annualized vs +15.76%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 15.8% for VONG. 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 -32.7% for VONG. 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 VONG charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $6 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.42% against 0.46% for VONG.

Holdings Overlap

QQQ already in VONG81.5%
VONG already in QQQ72.6%

81.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings VONG also owns. 72.6% of VONG's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.

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

The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, QQQ as of Sep 15, 2026 and VONG as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

61 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 368 in VONG, against full books of 321 and 374.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 243 positions for VONG that do not appear in our book for QQQ (26.7% of the fund), and 35 for QQQ that do not appear in VONG (16.3%).

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

StockWeight in QQQWeight in VONGDifference
NVDANvidia Corp8.45%14.55%6.10%
AAPLApple, Inc7.80%7.52%0.28%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp5.88%5.36%0.52%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A3.15%6.45%3.30%
AVGOBroadcom Inc2.74%5.63%2.89%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C2.93%5.26%2.33%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.4.85%2.88%1.97%
METAMeta Platforms Inc3.07%3.11%0.04%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc3.71%2.41%1.30%
TSLATesla Inc2.92%2.82%0.10%

81.5% of QQQ is already inside VONG.

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

QQQVONG

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, QQQ or VONG?

QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VONG charges 0.06%. VONG is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, QQQ or VONG?

Over the past year QQQ returned +24.51% vs +9.07% for VONG, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), QQQ annualized +18.78% vs +15.76% for VONG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, QQQ or VONG?

QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 15.8% for VONG. Worst drawdown: QQQ -35.1% vs VONG -32.7%.

Should I hold both QQQ and VONG?

QQQ and VONG 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 VONG?

81.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings VONG also owns. 72.6% of VONG's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 61 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 368 in VONG.

Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or VONG?

QQQ yields 0.42% while VONG yields 0.46%, so VONG currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VONG better than QQQ?

VONG 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 47.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.