QQQM vs XLF: Complete Comparison

Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF vs Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund — overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis

Holdings Overlap
0.00%
Very Low Overlap
Shared Holdings
0 of 10
Complete portfolio analysis
Calculation Method
Min Weight
Weighted intersection

Visual Overlap

QQQM
XLF
0.0%
QQQM Only
Overlap
XLF Only

Price Performance

Historical price comparison over 3M

QQQM Return
+13.76%
XLF Return
-7.65%
Winner
QQQM
+21.41%
Max Drawdown
QQQM: -11.7%
XLF: -14.0%
QQQM Volatility (annualized)18.60%
XLF Volatility (annualized)16.23%

📈 Comparison

Metric
QQQM
XLF
1 Year Return
N/A
+28.5%
3 Year Return
N/A
+10.5%
5 Year Return
N/A
+14.8%
Volatility
undefined%
21.50%
Expense Ratio
0.50%
0.10%
⚠️ Past performance does not guarantee future results. Data may be delayed.

⚔️ Comparison

2 - 12

🏆 XLF wins this comparison

Key Factors

💰 Expense Ratio
QQQM:0.50%
vs
XLF:0.10%
🎯 Number of Holdings
QQQM:10 holdings
vs
XLF:68 holdings
Additional Metrics (3)
⚖️ Concentration Risk
QQQM: 46.9% in top 10
XLF: 55.7% in top 10
📊 Assets Under Management
QQQM: $5B
XLF: $40B
🔍 Uniqueness vs SPY
QQQM: 61.7% unique
XLF: 86.3% unique

Bottom line: XLF wins with better expense ratio and number of holdings. Consider XLF for your portfolio, but QQQM is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.

Detailed Overlap Analysis

0 shared holdings representing 0.0% portfolio overlap

Top Shared Holdings

#StockQQQM WeightXLF WeightOverlap
0
Shared Stocks
0.0%
Total Overlap
0
Sectors Represented

Top Holdings Only in QQQM

Unique to QQQM

Scroll horizontally to see all data
SymbolNameWeight
AAPLApple Inc8.85%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp7.92%
NVDANVIDIA Corp7.45%
AMZNAmazon.com Inc5.38%
METAMeta Platforms Inc3.82%

Top Holdings Only in XLF

Unique to XLF

Scroll horizontally to see all data
SymbolNameWeight
BRK-BBRK-B11.80%
JPMJPM10.82%
VV7.26%
MAMA5.81%
BACBAC4.78%

Price Correlation

How We Calculate Overlap

We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:

Overlap = Σ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holding

Normalization: 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.

📊 This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.

Want deeper analysis on QQQM or XLF?

Complement your EigenDex analysis with these research tools.

Some links may be affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support EigenDex as a free tool. We only recommend tools we believe provide genuine value to investors.

Related Articles

Compare More ETFs