QQQM vs SPYG: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) and State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF (SPYG) — both 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
QQQM and SPYG compete directly — both are US Large Cap Growth funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — QQQM scores higher: 70.8 (Grade B) versus 67.7 for SPYG. That doesn't make SPYG a bad fund; it means QQQM 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
| QQQM | SPYG | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Large Cap Growth | US Large Cap Growth |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $101.3B | $53.0B |
| Dividend yield | 0.43% | 0.40% |
| 1-year return | +21.97% | +18.08% |
| 3-year return | +81.69% | +86.66% |
| Volatility | 18.82% | 17.74% |
| Max drawdown | -22.70% | -22.14% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.90 | 0.74 |
| ETFValuer score | 70.8 | 67.7 |
| Grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #103 | #144 |
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
SPYG is the cheaper fund, charging 0.04% a year versus 0.15% for QQQM — a gap of 0.11 percentage points (about $11.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What QQQM's Fees Cost You
QQQM charges an expense ratio of 0.15% 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, SPYG returned +86.66% versus +81.69% for QQQM — a gap of about 5.0 percentage points. On risk, SPYG has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-22.14% vs. -22.70%). QQQM currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 0.90 vs. 0.74), 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), QQQM and SPYG show a extremely high correlation of 0.976 — very close substitutes. Holding both would add very little diversification: when one falls, the other almost always falls with it. Treat these as alternatives to each other, not as complements in the same portfolio.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.976 | Extremely high — very close substitutes |
| R-squared | 95.3% | 95.3% of QQQM's daily moves are explained by SPYG's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 4.37% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | QQQM +22.69% · SPYG +23.49% | SPYG ahead by 0.80 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, QQQM finished as much as +9.6 points ahead of SPYG at the best extreme and -11.1 points at the worst — a 20.7-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
QQQM and SPYG hold 7 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 39.4% of QQQM and 54.0% of SPYG. That's heavy duplication — owning both largely doubles down on the same companies rather than spreading risk. Most investors should pick one.
| Shared Holding | QQQM Weight | SPYG Weight |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. | 8.37% | 14.62% |
| Alphabet Inc. | 6.80% | 10.40% |
| Microsoft Corp. | 5.67% | 9.48% |
| Apple Inc. | 7.59% | 6.43% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. | 4.36% | 3.72% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. | 3.70% | 4.32% |
| Broadcom Inc. | 2.93% | 5.06% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean QQQM if…
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 0.90 beats 0.74
Lean SPYG if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.04% vs 0.15%, about $11 a year less on a $10,000 position
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 86.7% over 3 years against 81.7%
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is QQQM or SPYG better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — QQQM scores higher: 70.8 (Grade B) versus 67.7 for SPYG. That doesn't make SPYG a bad fund; it means QQQM 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, QQQM or SPYG?
SPYG currently has the lower expense ratio (0.04% vs. 0.15%).
Can I hold both QQQM and SPYG?
You can, but there's little point. QQQM and SPYG have a daily return correlation of 0.98 over the past 3.0 years, meaning they move almost in lockstep. Holding both roughly doubles a single bet rather than spreading it — pick whichever wins on cost and liquidity and put the money in one place.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.