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

IVV vs QQQI: how they differ

Over the year IVV returned more, +17.6% against +16.9%, and IVV charges 0.03% against 0.68%.

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and NEOS Nasdaq-100(R) High Income ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IVV and QQQI hold 54% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IVV and QQQI both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIVVQQQI
NVIDIA Corp.7.52%7.66%
Apple, Inc.6.59%6.63%
Microsoft Corp.4.30%4.38%
Amazon.com, Inc.3.62%4.05%
Alphabet, Inc.3.25%3.32%
Broadcom, Inc.2.77%2.82%
Alphabet, Inc.2.59%3.07%
Micron Technology, Inc.2.02%5.61%
Meta Platforms, Inc.1.92%2.65%
Tesla, Inc.1.84%3.35%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.1.47%4.12%
Intel Corp.1.02%2.99%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IVVOnly in QQQI
Eli Lilly & Co. 1.47%Linde PLC 1.05%
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 1.42%Seagate Technology Holdings PL 0.92%
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 1.36%ASML Holding NV 0.76%
Johnson & Johnson 0.95%Shopify Inc 0.61%
Visa, Inc. 0.88%MercadoLibre Inc 0.37%
Exxon Mobil Corp. 0.88%Astera Labs Inc 0.35%
Caterpillar, Inc. 0.76%NXP Semiconductors NV 0.32%
AbbVie, Inc. 0.69%Nebius Group NV 0.26%

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 Jun 30, 2026.

IVV and QQQI on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IVV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
QQQI
NEOS Nasdaq-100(R) High Income ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundIncome ETF
IssueriSharesNEOS
What it isS&P 500covered call, vs QQQ
Total return, 1 year+17.6%+16.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+23.0%
Gap to the S&P 500+0.1 pts−6.1 pts
Cash paid, 1 yearnot an income fund14.2%
Expense ratio0.03%0.68%
Holdings504not filed

IVV in plain words

IVV is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 504 positions, with the top ten at 36.4%.

QQQI in plain words

Over the year to Sep 11, 2026, QQQI paid 14.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 1.5%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +16.9%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +23.0% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 6.1 pts. At its price on Sep 11, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 14.3%, paid monthly. NEOS estimates that 98% of the distribution paid Jun 18, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IVV or QQQI?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IVV returned +17.6% and QQQI returned +16.9%, so IVV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IVV or QQQI?
IVV charges 0.03% a year and QQQI charges 0.68%, so IVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Are IVV and QQQI the same kind of fund?
No. IVV is an index ETF and QQQI is an option-income 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources