Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

FNDX vs QQQM: how they differ

FNDX and QQQM hold 32% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.

Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FNDX and QQQM hold 32% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FNDX and QQQM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFNDXQQQM
Apple Inc4.64%7.29%
Intel Corp2.57%2.52%
Alphabet Inc2.38%3.52%
Microsoft Corp2.33%5.32%
Alphabet Inc1.90%3.26%
Amazon.com Inc1.86%4.62%
Micron Technology Inc1.60%4.80%
Meta Platforms Inc1.24%2.97%
Walmart Inc1.01%2.48%
Cisco Systems Inc0.90%2.09%
Broadcom Inc0.65%3.37%
NVIDIA Corp0.55%8.16%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FNDXOnly in QQQM
Exxon Mobil Corp 2.29%Palantir Technologies Inc. 1.58%
Chevron Corp 1.49%Linde PLC 1.01%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.41%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.84%
JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.38%AppLovin Corp. 0.83%
UnitedHealth Group Inc 1.37%CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. 0.81%
Verizon Communications Inc 0.99%Shopify Inc. 0.64%
Johnson & Johnson 0.97%ASML Holding N.V. 0.62%
CVS Health Corp 0.91%MercadoLibre, Inc. 0.38%

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 dated May 31, 2026.

FNDX and QQQM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabInvesco
What it isFundamental U.S. Large CompanyNasdaq-100
Total return, 1 year+26.1%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+8.6 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.25%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50091.2%96.7%
Holdings733101

FNDX in plain words

FNDX is an index equity fund tracking the Fundamental U.S. Large Company. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +26.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 733 positions, with the top ten at 22.5%.

QQQM in plain words

QQQM is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% 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 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FNDX or QQQM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FNDX returned +26.1% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FNDX or QQQM?
FNDX charges 0.25% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FNDX and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of FNDX and 97% of QQQM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 32% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

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.

FNDX against QQQM, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 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, FNDX against QQQM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FNDX-QQQM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources