CUT vs. QQQM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CUT (Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF) and QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CUT is a Materials fund tracking the Beacon Global Timber Index, while QQQM is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CUT returned -3.35%/yr vs 16.03%/yr for QQQM. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CUT charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QQQM.

Performance

CUT vs. QQQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CUT achieves a -3.79% return, which is significantly lower than QQQM's 15.99% return.

CUT

• 1D: 1.76%
• 1M: 3.64%
• YTD: -3.79%
• 6M: -3.11%
• 1Y: -5.33%
• 3Y*: 1.76%
• 5Y*: -3.35%
• 10Y*: 4.75%

QQQM

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: -0.84%
• YTD: 15.99%
• 6M: 14.21%
• 1Y: 32.39%
• 3Y*: 25.97%
• 5Y*: 16.03%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CUT vs. QQQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CUT Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF	-3.79%	-5.92%	1.82%	8.65%	-16.38%	12.29%	14.97%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	15.99%	20.85%	25.68%	55.01%	-32.52%	27.45%	6.64%

Correlation

The correlation between CUT and QQQM is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020	0.51

The correlation between CUT and QQQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (1 year) to 0.52 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CUT vs. QQQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CUT	QQQM
Basic Materials	49.4%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	41.5%	11.4%
Industrials	5.1%	2.6%
Real Estate	4.5%	0.1%
Financial Services	0.3%	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	0.2%	6.4%
Technology	0.1%	58.7%
Communication Services	-	14.3%
Energy	-	0.5%
Healthcare	-	3.7%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

CUT vs. QQQM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CUT

CUT Risk / Return Rank: 7
CUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
CUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
CUT Omega Ratio Rank: 6
CUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
CUT Martin Ratio Rank: 7

QQQM

QQQM Risk / Return Rank: 60
QQQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
QQQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
QQQM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QQQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
QQQM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CUT vs. QQQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CUT	QQQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.28	1.83	-2.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.28	2.42	-2.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.33	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.27	2.72	-2.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.56	10.03	-10.59

CUT vs. QQQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CUT Sharpe Ratio is -0.28, which is lower than the QQQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUT and QQQM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CUT vs. QQQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CUT drawdown since its inception was -70.03%, which is greater than QQQM's maximum drawdown of -35.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUT and QQQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CUT	QQQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-70.03%	-35.04%	-34.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.62%	-11.96%	-7.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.23%	-22.70%	+0.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.40%	-35.04%	+4.64%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.76%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.53%	-4.64%	-16.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.28%	-8.20%	-7.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.60%	3.24%	+6.36%

Volatility

CUT vs. QQQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) is 5.32%, while Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) has a volatility of 9.00%. This indicates that CUT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CUT	QQQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	9.00%	-3.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.36%	14.39%	-0.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.94%	17.83%	+1.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.53%	22.53%	-4.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.12%	22.29%	-2.17%

CUT vs. QQQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CUT has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

CUT vs. QQQM - Dividend Comparison

CUT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.56%, more than QQQM's 0.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CUT Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF	2.56%	2.46%	3.05%	2.44%	2.58%	1.57%	1.65%	2.67%	3.43%	1.57%	2.08%	1.52%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.45%	0.50%	0.61%	0.65%	0.83%	0.40%	0.16%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CUT and QQQM in my portfolio?

CUT and QQQM have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CUT or QQQM?

QQQM has higher volatility (9.00%) compared to CUT (5.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CUT dropped -70.03% vs QQQM's -35.04%.

Which ETF is better, CUT or QQQM?

On 5-year performance, QQQM leads with 16.03% vs -3.35% for CUT. On fees, QQQM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CUT has been the lower-risk option at 5.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CUT or QQQM?

Over the 5-year period, QQQM has performed better with a 16.03% return vs -3.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CUT or QQQM?

QQQM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CUT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CUT or QQQM?

CUT has the higher dividend yield at 2.56%, compared with 0.45% for QQQM.

What is the main difference between CUT and QQQM?

CUT is categorized as Materials, while QQQM is Nasdaq-100. CUT tracks Beacon Global Timber Index, while QQQM tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CUT and 0.15% for QQQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs -0.28), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.