Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
FTEC vs QQQ: how they differ
FTEC and QQQ hold 50% of their weight in the same names, and FTEC returned more over the year.
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FTEC and QQQ hold 50% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | FTEC | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 18.00% | 8.16% |
| Apple Inc | 14.38% | 7.29% |
| Microsoft Corp | 9.54% | 5.32% |
| Broadcom Inc | 5.01% | 3.37% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 2.64% | 4.80% |
| Advanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.60% | 3.70% |
| Intel Corp | 1.99% | 2.52% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 1.66% | 2.09% |
| Lam Research Corp | 1.49% | 1.75% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 1.45% | 1.57% |
| Palantir Technologies Inc | 1.40% | 1.58% |
| Texas Instruments Inc | 1.20% | 1.22% |
| Only in FTEC | Only in QQQ |
|---|---|
| Oracle Corp 1.22% | Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62% |
| International Business Machines Corp 0.99% | Alphabet Inc. 3.52% |
| Arista Networks Inc 0.89% | Tesla, Inc. 3.46% |
| Amphenol Corp 0.86% | Alphabet Inc. 3.26% |
| Salesforce Inc 0.77% | Meta Platforms, Inc. 2.97% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.76% | Walmart Inc. 2.48% |
| Corning Inc 0.68% | Costco Wholesale Corp. 1.86% |
| Accenture PLC 0.53% | Netflix, Inc. 1.59% |
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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| FTEC Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF | QQQ Invesco QQQ Trust | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Fidelity | Invesco |
| What it is | MSCI Information Technology | Nasdaq-100, book from QQQM |
| Total return, 1 year | +35.7% | +23.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +18.2 pts | +5.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 86.2% | 96.7% |
| Holdings | 282 | 101 |
FTEC in plain words
FTEC is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Information Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +35.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 58.8%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
QQQ in plain words
QQQ 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 0.18% 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 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FTEC or QQQ?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FTEC returned +35.7% and QQQ returned +23.0%, so FTEC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, FTEC or QQQ?
- FTEC charges 0.08% a year and QQQ charges 0.18%, so FTEC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do FTEC and QQQ overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 86% of FTEC and 97% of QQQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 50% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, FTEC against QQQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FTEC-QQQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources