GPIQ vs. QQQG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GPIQ (Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF) and QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GPIQ returned 37.50% vs 42.60% for QQQG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GPIQ charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for QQQG.

Performance

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) and Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GPIQ achieves a 18.30% return, which is significantly lower than QQQG's 32.43% return.

GPIQ

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 8.51%
• YTD: 18.30%
• 6M: 17.64%
• 1Y: 37.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQG

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 17.75%
• YTD: 32.43%
• 6M: 30.01%
• 1Y: 42.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GPIQ Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	18.30%	19.77%	7.73%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	32.43%	14.72%	2.23%

Correlation

The correlation between GPIQ and QQQG is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2024	0.89

The correlation between GPIQ and QQQG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GPIQ	QQQG
Technology	53.8%	68.6%
Communication Services	15.8%	10.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	1.5%
Healthcare	4.2%	12.1%
Industrials	2.9%	2.6%
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	1.4%
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

GPIQ vs. QQQG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GPIQ

GPIQ Risk / Return Rank: 81
GPIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
GPIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
GPIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 82
GPIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
GPIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 83

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 62
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QQQG 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.

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) and Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG). 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.

	GPIQ	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.81	2.18	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.71	2.88	+0.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.37	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.96	3.10	+0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.48	11.16	+6.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GPIQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.81, which is comparable to the QQQG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GPIQ and QQQG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GPIQ	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.81	2.18	+0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.78	1.20	+0.58

Drawdowns

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GPIQ drawdown since its inception was -21.06%, smaller than the maximum QQQG drawdown of -23.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GPIQ and QQQG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GPIQ	QQQG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.06%	-23.61%	+2.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.51%	-13.79%	+4.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	0.00%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-3.60%	+1.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	3.83%	-1.68%

Volatility

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) is 3.39%, while Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a volatility of 5.26%. This indicates that GPIQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GPIQ	QQQG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.39%	5.26%	-1.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.44%	16.03%	-5.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.40%	19.65%	-6.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.47%	23.41%	-5.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.47%	23.41%	-5.94%

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GPIQ has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than QQQG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

GPIQ vs. QQQG - Dividend Comparison

GPIQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.32%, more than QQQG's 0.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GPIQ Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	9.32%	9.81%	9.18%	1.74%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.04%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GPIQ and QQQG in my portfolio?

GPIQ and QQQG have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GPIQ or QQQG?

QQQG has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to GPIQ (3.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GPIQ dropped -21.06% vs QQQG's -23.61%.

Which ETF is better, GPIQ or QQQG?

On 1-year performance, QQQG leads with 42.60% vs 37.50% for GPIQ. On fees, GPIQ is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, GPIQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GPIQ or QQQG?

Over the 1-year period, QQQG has performed better with a 42.60% return vs 37.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GPIQ or QQQG?

GPIQ is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for QQQG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GPIQ or QQQG?

GPIQ has the higher dividend yield at 9.32%, compared with 0.04% for QQQG.

What is the main difference between GPIQ and QQQG?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for GPIQ and 0.49% for QQQG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GPIQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 2.18), 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.