Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AIPI vs QQQ

REX AI EQUITY PREMIUM INCOME ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AIPI and QQQ hold 41% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions AIPI and QQQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingAIPIQQQ
NVIDIA CORPORATION8.23%8.16%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.4.15%4.80%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.3.32%3.70%
APPLE INC.2.58%7.29%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.52%5.32%
INTEL CORPORATION2.67%2.52%
BROADCOM INC.2.46%3.37%
META PLATFORMS, INC.2.41%2.97%
AMAZON.COM, INC.2.34%4.62%
ALPHABET INC.2.29%3.52%
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.3.04%2.09%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.8.40%1.58%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AIPIOnly in QQQ
Astera Labs, Inc 7.20%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC. 3.95%Alphabet Inc. 3.26%
IONQ Inc 3.62%Walmart Inc. 2.48%
SERVICENOW, INC. 3.17%Costco Wholesale Corp. 1.86%
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT 2.98%Lam Research Corp. 1.75%
SALESFORCE, INC. 2.41%Netflix, Inc. 1.59%
ARISTA NETWORKS, INC. 2.14%Applied Materials, Inc. 1.57%
Texas Instruments Inc. 1.22%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings as filed for May 31, 2026.

AIPI and QQQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AIPI
REX AI EQUITY PREMIUM INCOME ETF
QQQ
Invesco QQQ Trust
Where it sitsIncome deskCore fund
IssuerREXInvesco
What it iscovered call, vs AIQNasdaq-100, book from QQQM
Total return, 1 year+25.5%+25.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+42.9%+20.0%
Gap to the S&P 500−17.3 pts+5.6 pts
Cash paid, 1 year31.2%not an income fund
Expense ratio0.65%0.18%
Holdingsn/a101

AIPI in plain words

Over the year to Sep 4, 2026, AIPI paid 31.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 10.2%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +25.5%. AI and technology (AIQ), used as the AI proxy returned +42.9% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 17.3 pts. At its price on Sep 4, 2026 the latest distribution annualises to 35.0%, paid weekly. REX estimates that 100% of the distribution paid was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterisation rather than a measure of erosion).

QQQ in plain words

QQQ is a index equity fund tracking Nasdaq-100, book from QQQM. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +25.6% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 4, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AIPI or QQQ?
In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AIPI returned +25.5% and QQQ returned +25.6%, so QQQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AIPI or QQQ?
AIPI charges 0.65% a year and QQQ charges 0.18%, so QQQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Are AIPI and QQQ the same kind of fund?
No. AIPI is an option-income ETF and QQQ is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

AIPI against QQQ, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 4, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, AIPI against QQQ, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/AIPI-QQQ.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources