IWB vs QQQ: Complete Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust โ overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis
Visual Overlap
Price Performance
Historical price comparison over 3M
๐Performance Comparison
โ ๏ธRisk Metrics
Interpretation:
- ๐ Lower volatility = smoother ride
- โก Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
- โ ๏ธ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
- ๐ Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500
โ๏ธHead-to-Head Comparison
๐ QQQ wins this comparison
Key Factors
โถAdditional Metrics (5)
Bottom line: QQQ wins with better 5-year return. Both have the same expense ratio, so cost isn't a differentiator. Consider QQQ for your portfolio, but IWB is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.
Detailed Overlap Analysis
77 shared holdings representing 51.8% portfolio overlap
Top Shared Holdings
| # | Stock | IWB Weight | QQQ Weight | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NVDA NVDA | 6.89% | 8.99% | 6.89% |
| 2 | AAPL AAPL | 6.43% | 7.94% | 6.43% |
| 3 | MSFT MSFT | 5.78% | 7.12% | 5.78% |
| 4 | AMZN AMZN | 3.45% | 4.87% | 3.45% |
| 5 | AVGO AVGO | 2.94% | 3.24% | 2.94% |
| 6 | GOOGL GOOGL | 2.89% | 3.58% | 2.89% |
| 7 | GOOG GOOG | 2.36% | 3.35% | 2.36% |
| 8 | META META | 2.31% | 3.85% | 2.31% |
| 9 | TSLA TSLA | 1.96% | 4.21% | 1.96% |
| 10 | NFLX NFLX | 0.65% | 2.15% | 0.65% |
Overlap by Sector
Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution
Top Holdings Only in IWB
Unique to IWB
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| BRK-B | BRK-B | 1.46% |
| JPM | JPM | 1.39% |
| LLY | LLY | 1.27% |
| V | V | 0.88% |
| XOM | XOM | 0.80% |
Top Holdings Only in QQQ
Unique to QQQ
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| PLTR | PLTR | 2.40% |
| AMD | AMD | 1.90% |
| MU | MU | 1.75% |
| CSCO | CSCO | 1.67% |
| LRCX | LRCX | 1.21% |
Price Correlation
How We Calculate Overlap
We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:
Overlap = ฮฃ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holdingNormalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).
Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.
๐ This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.