Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
QQQM vs SIVR: how they differ
QQQM is an equity index fund and SIVR a commodity fund, and over the year SIVR returned more, +54.2% against +23.0%.
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF.
| QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF | SIVR abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Invesco | abrdn |
| What it is | Nasdaq-100 | Physical Silver |
| Total return, 1 year | +23.0% | +54.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.5 pts | +36.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | not published |
| Holdings | 101 | not filed |
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.
SIVR in plain words
SIVR is a commodity fund tracking the Physical Silver. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +54.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 44.9% below its high of Jan 28, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, QQQM or SIVR?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQM returned +23.0% and SIVR returned +54.2%, so SIVR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
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, QQQM against SIVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/QQQM-SIVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources