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

QQQM vs XOVR: how they differ

QQQM and XOVR hold 18% of their weight in the same names, and QQQM returned more over the year.

Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, QQQM and XOVR hold 18% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions QQQM and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingQQQMXOVR
NVIDIA Corp.8.16%9.48%
Alphabet Inc.3.52%6.53%
Meta Platforms, Inc.2.97%4.47%
Tesla, Inc.3.46%1.63%
AppLovin Corp.0.83%3.95%
Palantir Technologies Inc.1.58%0.56%
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.0.34%1.77%
DoorDash, Inc.0.29%2.04%
Axon Enterprise, Inc.0.16%2.60%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in QQQMOnly in XOVR
Apple Inc. 7.29%Astera Labs Inc 7.75%
Microsoft Corp. 5.32%Natera Inc 3.70%
Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80%Robinhood Markets Inc 3.56%
Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62%Veeva Systems Inc 3.17%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%Reddit Inc 2.78%
Broadcom Inc. 3.37%Affirm Holdings Inc 2.64%
Alphabet Inc. 3.26%Rocket Lab Corp 2.50%
Intel Corp. 2.52%Arista Networks Inc 2.31%

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.

QQQM and XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerInvescoERShares
What it isNasdaq-100Private-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+23.0%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50096.7%43.4%
Holdings10132

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.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, QQQM or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQM returned +23.0% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, QQQM or XOVR?
QQQM charges 0.15% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do QQQM and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 97% of QQQM and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 18% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources