IJH vs QQQ: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH) and Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) — both US Mid Cap / US Large Cap Growth funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
IJH (US Mid Cap) and QQQ (US Large Cap Growth) sit in different corners of the market, so this is less a head-to-head than a question of what role each would play. They can be complements rather than alternatives — the metrics below show how differently the two have actually behaved.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — QQQ scores higher: 70.1 (Grade B) versus 66.5 for IJH. That doesn't make IJH a bad fund; it means QQQ currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| IJH | QQQ | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Mid Cap | US Large Cap Growth |
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.18% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $124.3B | $490.1B |
| Dividend yield | 3.72% | 0.26% |
| 1-year return | +19.19% | +21.94% |
| 3-year return | +44.92% | +81.45% |
| Volatility | 15.71% | 18.96% |
| Max drawdown | -24.10% | -22.77% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.90 | 0.89 |
| ETFValuer score | 66.5 | 70.1 |
| Grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #156 | #109 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
IJH is the cheaper fund, charging 0.05% a year versus 0.18% for QQQ — a gap of 0.13 percentage points (about $13.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. Because these funds do different jobs, though, cost alone shouldn't decide it — a cheaper fund that gives you the wrong exposure is a false economy. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What QQQ's Fees Cost You
QQQ charges an expense ratio of 0.18% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, QQQ returned +81.45% versus +44.92% for IJH — a gap of about 36.5 percentage points. On risk, QQQ has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-22.77% vs. -24.10%). IJH currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 0.90 vs. 0.89), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), IJH and QQQ show a moderate correlation of 0.739 — related but meaningfully different. That's loose enough that the two funds do behave differently in a meaningful share of market conditions — holding both is defensible if you want exposure to each mandate.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.739 | Moderate — related but meaningfully different |
| R-squared | 54.6% | 54.6% of IJH's daily moves are explained by QQQ's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 14.02% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | IJH +13.46% · QQQ +22.67% | QQQ ahead by 9.21 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, IJH finished as much as +4.1 points ahead of QQQ at the best extreme and -24.9 points at the worst — a 29.0-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
IJH and QQQ share no companies among their top 10 reported holdings. That points to genuinely different exposure, so holding both is more likely to diversify than to duplicate. Full portfolios may still overlap further down the list.
Based on the top 10 holdings in each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean IJH if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.05% vs 0.18%, about $13 a year less on a $10,000 position
- Current income matters to you — it yields 3.72% against 0.26%
- It has been the calmer ride (15.7% volatility vs 19.0%)
Lean QQQ if…
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 81.5% over 3 years against 44.9%
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($490B in assets vs $124B) and the tighter spread (0.018% vs 0.822%)
These two are not really substitutes, so "both, in some proportion" is often the right answer rather than picking one. Model the blend with the Portfolio Blender.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is IJH or QQQ better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — QQQ scores higher: 70.1 (Grade B) versus 66.5 for IJH. That doesn't make IJH a bad fund; it means QQQ currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, IJH or QQQ?
IJH currently has the lower expense ratio (0.05% vs. 0.18%).
Can I hold both IJH and QQQ?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. IJH and QQQ correlate at only 0.74 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.