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

MOAT vs QQQM: how they differ

MOAT and QQQM hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and QQQM returned more over the year.

VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, MOAT and QQQM hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions MOAT and QQQM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingMOATQQQM
NVIDIA Corp2.45%8.16%
Broadcom Inc2.43%3.37%
Microsoft Corp2.20%5.32%
Applied Materials Inc2.34%1.57%
Amazon.com Inc1.33%4.62%
Meta Platforms Inc1.17%2.97%
Palo Alto Networks Inc2.51%1.01%
PepsiCo Inc1.17%0.87%
Fortinet Inc2.21%0.45%
MercadoLibre Inc1.28%0.38%
Datadog Inc2.44%0.36%
Mondelez International Inc2.34%0.34%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in MOATOnly in QQQM
Masco Corp 2.96%Apple Inc. 7.29%
Kenvue Inc 2.59%Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80%
Brown-Forman Corp 2.49%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%
Charles Schwab Corp/The 2.45%Alphabet Inc. 3.52%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.43%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
Danaher Corp 2.41%Alphabet Inc. 3.26%
Veeva Systems Inc 2.41%Intel Corp. 2.52%
Constellation Brands Inc 2.32%Walmart Inc. 2.48%

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 and May 31, 2026.

MOAT and QQQM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanEckInvesco
What it isMorningstar Wide MoatNasdaq-100
Total return, 1 year+11.3%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−6.2 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.46%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50091.6%96.7%
Holdings55101

MOAT in plain words

MOAT is an index equity fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.46% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 55 positions, with the top ten at 25.3%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

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, MOAT or QQQM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MOAT returned +11.3% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, MOAT or QQQM?
MOAT charges 0.46% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do MOAT and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of MOAT and 97% of QQQM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 15% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources