Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
QQQ vs SMH
Invesco QQQ Trust and VanEck Semiconductor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, QQQ and SMH hold 33% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | QQQ | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. | 8.16% | 17.56% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. | 4.80% | 5.68% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | 3.70% | 5.63% |
| Broadcom Inc. | 3.37% | 5.28% |
| Intel Corp. | 2.52% | 5.15% |
| Lam Research Corp. | 1.75% | 5.32% |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 1.57% | 5.74% |
| Texas Instruments Inc. | 1.22% | 4.17% |
| QUALCOMM Inc. | 1.18% | 3.74% |
| KLA Corp. | 1.11% | 5.58% |
| Analog Devices, Inc. | 0.89% | 4.00% |
| Marvell Technology, Inc. | 0.78% | 4.67% |
| Only in QQQ | Only in SMH |
|---|---|
| Apple Inc. 7.29% | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 9.29% |
| Microsoft Corp. 5.32% | ASML Holding NV 5.04% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62% | Teradyne Inc 1.50% |
| Alphabet Inc. 3.52% | Astera Labs Inc 1.27% |
| Tesla, Inc. 3.46% | STMicroelectronics NV 1.26% |
| Alphabet Inc. 3.26% | NXP Semiconductors NV 1.15% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. 2.97% | ON Semiconductor Corp 0.58% |
| Walmart Inc. 2.48% | Skyworks Solutions Inc 0.16% |
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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| QQQ Invesco QQQ Trust | SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Themes desk |
| Issuer | Invesco | VanEck |
| What it is | Nasdaq-100, book from QQQM | Semiconductors |
| Total return, 1 year | +25.6% | +96.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +20.0% | +20.0% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.6 pts | +76.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 96.7% | 82.0% |
| Holdings | 101 | 25 |
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.
SMH in plain words
By weight, 82% of SMH's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 81%. The top ten holdings are 70% of the fund across 25 positions, as filed for Jun 30, 2026. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 the fund returned +96.2% with distributions reinvested against +20.0% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 76.3 pts. It sits 15.2% below its all-time high of Jun 22, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, QQQ or SMH?
- In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQ returned +25.6% and SMH returned +96.2%, so SMH returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, QQQ or SMH?
- QQQ charges 0.18% a year and SMH charges 0.35%, so QQQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do QQQ and SMH overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of QQQ and 82% of SMH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 33% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
- Are QQQ and SMH the same kind of fund?
- No. QQQ is an index ETF and SMH 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 SMH, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/QQQ-SMH.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources