Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

QQQ vs XLY: how they differ

QQQ and XLY hold 10% of their weight in the same names, and QQQ returned more over the year.

Invesco QQQ Trust and State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, QQQ and XLY hold 10% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions QQQ and XLY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingQQQXLY
Amazon.com Inc4.36%24.68%
Tesla Inc2.92%17.84%
Booking Holdings Inc0.60%3.52%
Starbucks Corp0.50%2.96%
Marriott International Inc/MD0.39%1.88%
DoorDash Inc0.37%1.99%
Ross Stores Inc0.32%1.90%
O'Reilly Automotive Inc0.32%1.85%
Airbnb Inc0.31%1.83%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in QQQOnly in XLY
NVIDIA Corp 8.52%HOME DEPOT INC 5.31%
Apple Inc 7.72%MCDONALD S CORP 4.09%
Microsoft Corp 5.89%TJX COMPANIES INC 3.44%
Micron Technology Inc 4.90%LOWE S COS INC 2.88%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 3.65%GENERAL MOTORS CO 2.03%
Alphabet Inc 3.12%HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS IN 1.82%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.07%ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD 1.69%
Alphabet Inc 2.90%FORD MOTOR CO 1.42%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

QQQ and XLY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
QQQ
Invesco QQQ Trust
XLY
State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerInvescoState Street
What it isNasdaq-100Consumer discretionary
Total return, 1 year+23.0%−4.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts−21.6 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50096.7%100.0%
Holdings10549

QQQ in plain words

QQQ 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 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 105 positions, with the top ten at 47.0%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

XLY in plain words

XLY is an index equity fund tracking the Consumer discretionary. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −4.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 49 positions, with the top ten at 68.7%. It sat 8.9% below its high of Jan 12, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, QQQ or XLY?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQ returned +23.0% and XLY returned −4.1%, so QQQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, QQQ or XLY?
QQQ charges 0.18% a year and XLY charges 0.08%, so XLY is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do QQQ and XLY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 97% of QQQ and 100% of XLY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 10% 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.

QQQ against XLY, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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 XLY, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/qqq-vs-xly Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources