Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
QQQM vs RSP: how they differ
QQQM and RSP hold 17% of their weight in the same names, and QQQM returned more over the year.
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, QQQM and RSP hold 17% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | QQQM | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| DoorDash Inc | 0.37% | 0.26% |
| Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc | 0.36% | 0.26% |
| Airbnb Inc | 0.31% | 0.25% |
| Crowdstrike Holdings Inc | 0.94% | 0.25% |
| Palo Alto Networks Inc | 1.23% | 0.25% |
| Palantir Technologies Inc | 1.69% | 0.25% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.89% | 0.24% |
| Gilead Sciences Inc | 0.80% | 0.23% |
| Constellation Energy Corp | 0.46% | 0.23% |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc | 0.58% | 0.23% |
| Automatic Data Processing Inc | 0.47% | 0.22% |
| Fortinet Inc | 0.52% | 0.22% |
| Only in QQQM | Only in RSP |
|---|---|
| Space Exploration Technologies Corp 1.26% | Moderna Inc 0.58% |
| ASML Holding NV 0.69% | Veeva Systems Inc 0.31% |
| Shopify Inc 0.69% | Zebra Technologies Corp 0.31% |
| ARM Holdings PLC 0.48% | Marathon Petroleum Corp 0.29% |
| MercadoLibre Inc 0.43% | Valero Energy Corp 0.29% |
| PDD Holdings Inc 0.23% | Charles River Laboratories International 0.28% |
| Nebius Group NV 0.22% | Phillips 66 0.28% |
| Astera Labs Inc 0.22% | Salesforce Inc 0.28% |
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.
| QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF | RSP Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Invesco | Invesco |
| What it is | Nasdaq-100 | S&P 500 equal weight |
| Total return, 1 year | +23.0% | +14.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.5 pts | −2.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 96.7% | 99.1% |
| Holdings | 106 | 506 |
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 Sep 10, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 106 positions, with the top ten at 47.1%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
RSP in plain words
RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 506 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, QQQM or RSP?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQM returned +23.0% and RSP returned +14.8%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, QQQM or RSP?
- QQQM charges 0.15% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do QQQM and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of QQQM and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 17% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, QQQM against RSP, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/qqqm-vs-rsp Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources