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

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

QQQ vs QYLD

Invesco QQQ Trust and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, QQQ and QYLD hold 74% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions QQQ and QYLD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingQQQQYLD
NVIDIA Corp.8.16%8.56%
Microsoft Corp.5.32%5.34%
Alphabet Inc.3.52%3.95%
Broadcom Inc.3.37%3.49%
Tesla, Inc.3.46%3.36%
Alphabet Inc.3.26%3.66%
Meta Platforms, Inc.2.97%3.18%
Micron Technology, Inc.4.80%2.83%
Walmart Inc.2.48%3.14%
Intel Corp.2.52%2.30%
Costco Wholesale Corp.1.86%2.19%
Cisco Systems, Inc.2.09%1.76%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in QQQOnly in QYLD
Apple Inc. 7.29%APPLE INC. 7.03%
Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62%AMAZON.COM, INC. 5.02%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 2.81%
Applied Materials, Inc. 1.57%APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 1.52%
Analog Devices, Inc. 0.89%ANALOG DEVICES, INC. 0.96%
Amgen Inc. 0.80%AMGEN INC. 0.91%
Fortinet, Inc. 0.45%AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC. 0.41%
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 0.39%AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. 0.36%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

QQQ and QYLD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
QQQ
Invesco QQQ Trust
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
Where it sitsCore fundIncome desk
IssuerInvescoGlobal X
What it isNasdaq-100, book from QQQMcovered call, vs QQQ
Total return, 1 year+25.6%+23.5%
S&P 500 over the same days+20.0%+25.6%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.6 pts−2.1 pts
Cash paid, 1 yearnot an income fund12.7%
Expense ratio0.18%0.60%
Holdings101n/a

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.

QYLD in plain words

Over the year to Sep 4, 2026, QYLD paid 12.7% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 9.5%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +23.5%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +25.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 2.1 pts. At its price on Sep 4, 2026 the latest distribution annualises to 11.9%, paid monthly. Global X estimates that 100% of the distribution paid Aug 27, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterisation rather than a measure of erosion).

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, QQQ or QYLD?
In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQ returned +25.6% and QYLD returned +23.5%, so QQQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, QQQ or QYLD?
QQQ charges 0.18% a year and QYLD charges 0.60%, so QQQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Are QQQ and QYLD the same kind of fund?
No. QQQ is an index ETF and QYLD 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources