Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
QQQ vs SKYY
Invesco QQQ Trust and First Trust Cloud Computing ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, QQQ and SKYY hold 16% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | QQQ | SKYY |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Corp. | 5.32% | 3.62% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. | 4.62% | 3.12% |
| Alphabet Inc. | 3.52% | 2.91% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | 2.09% | 1.97% |
| AppLovin Corp. | 0.83% | 0.85% |
| Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | 1.01% | 0.64% |
| Shopify Inc. | 0.64% | 2.00% |
| CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. | 0.81% | 0.63% |
| Adobe Inc. | 0.46% | 1.68% |
| Intuit Inc. | 0.40% | 0.55% |
| Datadog, Inc. | 0.36% | 0.47% |
| Workday, Inc. | 0.14% | 0.73% |
| Only in QQQ | Only in SKYY |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. 8.16% | Nutanix, Inc. (Class A) 4.27% |
| Apple Inc. 7.29% | Everpure, Inc. (Class A) 4.09% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80% | Arista Networks, Inc. 3.97% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70% | MongoDB, Inc. 2.99% |
| Tesla, Inc. 3.46% | Atlassian Corporation (Class A) 2.88% |
| Broadcom Inc. 3.37% | GitLab Inc. (Class A) 2.62% |
| Alphabet Inc. 3.26% | International Business Machines Corporat 2.58% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. 2.97% | Cloudflare, Inc. (Class A) 2.51% |
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 May 31, 2026 and Sep 4, 2026.
| QQQ Invesco QQQ Trust | SKYY First Trust Cloud Computing ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Themes desk |
| Issuer | Invesco | First Trust |
| What it is | Nasdaq-100, book from QQQM | Cloud and software |
| Total return, 1 year | +25.6% | +26.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +20.0% | +20.0% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.6 pts | +6.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.60% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 96.7% | 38.4% |
| Holdings | 101 | 64 |
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.
SKYY in plain words
By weight, 38% of SKYY's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 86%. The top ten holdings are 33% of the fund across 64 positions, as filed for Sep 3, 2026. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 the fund returned +26.4% with distributions reinvested against +20.0% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 6.5 pts.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, QQQ or SKYY?
- In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQ returned +25.6% and SKYY returned +26.4%, so SKYY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, QQQ or SKYY?
- QQQ charges 0.18% a year and SKYY charges 0.60%, so QQQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do QQQ and SKYY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of QQQ and 38% of SKYY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 16% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
- Are QQQ and SKYY the same kind of fund?
- No. QQQ is an index ETF and SKYY is a thematic 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, QQQ against SKYY, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/QQQ-SKYY.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources