QQQ vs XLK Overlap AnalysisOverlap
Comparing Invesco QQQ Trust and Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund
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 XLK wins this comparison
Key Factors
โถAdditional Metrics (5)
Bottom line: XLK wins with better expense ratio and 5-year return. Consider XLK for your portfolio, but QQQ is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.
Detailed Overlap Analysis
33 shared holdings representing 50.4% portfolio overlap
Top Shared Holdings
| # | Stock | QQQ Weight | XLK Weight | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NVDA NVDA | 8.99% | 14.84% | 8.99% |
| 2 | AAPL AAPL | 7.94% | 13.10% | 7.94% |
| 3 | MSFT MSFT | 7.12% | 11.75% | 7.12% |
| 4 | AVGO AVGO | 3.24% | 5.36% | 3.24% |
| 5 | PLTR PLTR | 2.40% | 3.75% | 2.40% |
| 6 | AMD AMD | 1.90% | 2.96% | 1.90% |
| 7 | MU MU | 1.75% | 2.72% | 1.75% |
| 8 | CSCO CSCO | 1.67% | 2.60% | 1.67% |
| 9 | LRCX LRCX | 1.21% | 1.88% | 1.21% |
| 10 | APP APP | 1.21% | 1.66% | 1.21% |
Overlap by Sector
Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution
Top Holdings Only in QQQ
Unique to QQQ
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| AMZN | AMZN | 4.87% |
| TSLA | TSLA | 4.21% |
| META | META | 3.85% |
| GOOGL | GOOGL | 3.58% |
| GOOG | GOOG | 3.35% |
Top Holdings Only in XLK
Unique to XLK
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| ORCL | ORCL | 2.81% |
| IBM | IBM | 2.41% |
| CRM | CRM | 2.13% |
| APH | APH | 1.43% |
| ACN | ACN | 1.42% |
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.