QQQ vs XLSR
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs State Street US Sector Rotation ETF
Which is better, QQQ or XLSR?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 90.6%.
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 | XLSR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.70% |
| AUM | $437.3B | $1.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.43% | 0.41% |
| Holdings | 208 | 47 |
| YTD Return | +10.43%Best | +4.28% |
| 1Y Return | +8.78%Best | +5.75% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.14%Best | +15.92% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.29%Best | +8.24% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.6% | 16.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.1% | -32.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,853Best | $14,857 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.9%Best | 90.6% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | State Street Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 10, 1999 | Apr 2, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 3, 2019 to Nov 10, 2026 (7.6 years).
QQQ vs XLSR 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 7.6 years both funds cover.
QQQ vs XLSR Performance
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and State Street US Sector Rotation ETF (XLSR) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management. Over the past year QQQ returned +8.78% while XLSR returned +5.75%. Year to date, QQQ is up 10.43% versus a gain of 4.28% for XLSR.
Over three years, QQQ compounded at +22.14% per year against +15.92% for XLSR; over five years the annualized figures are +12.29% and +8.24% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +19.17% annualized vs +11.71%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.6% compared with 16.0% for XLSR. 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 -32.9% for XLSR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. 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 XLSR charges 0.70%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $70 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQ currently yields 0.43% against 0.41% for XLSR.
Holdings Overlap
50.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings XLSR also owns. 24.9% of XLSR's money is in holdings QQQ also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
12 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 22 in XLSR, against full books of 208 and 47.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 10 positions for XLSR that do not appear in our book for QQQ (75.1% of the fund), and 82 for QQQ that do not appear in XLSR (46.5%).
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 XLSR | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.05% | 3.99% | 4.06% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.68% | 3.73% | 3.95% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.16% | 2.78% | 3.38% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.15% | 4.36% | 1.21% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.93% | 3.42% | 0.49% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.37% | 2.73% | 0.64% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.23% | 1.78% | 2.45% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 4.47% | 0.46% | 4.01% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.90% | 0.03% | 3.87% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.52% | 1.18% | 1.34% |
50.7% of QQQ is already inside XLSR.
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 XLSR?
QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.18% while XLSR charges 0.70%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $52 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQ or XLSR?
Over the past year QQQ returned +8.78% vs +5.75% for XLSR, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), QQQ annualized +19.17% vs +11.71% for XLSR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQ or XLSR?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 20.6% annualized versus 16.0% for XLSR. Worst drawdown: QQQ -35.1% vs XLSR -32.9%.
Should I hold both QQQ and XLSR?
QQQ and XLSR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 XLSR?
50.7% of QQQ's money is in holdings XLSR also owns. 24.9% of XLSR's is in holdings QQQ also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in QQQ and 22 in XLSR.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQ or XLSR?
QQQ yields 0.43% while XLSR yields 0.41%, so QQQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XLSR 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 0.90. QQQ is less concentrated, with 46.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 90.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.