GRPZ vs. QQQM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GRPZ (Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF) and QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRPZ is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index, while QQQM is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GRPZ returned 26.46% vs 34.99% for QQQM. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GRPZ charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QQQM.

Performance

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with GRPZ having a 16.31% return and QQQM slightly higher at 16.48%.

GRPZ

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: 4.07%
• YTD: 16.31%
• 6M: 12.55%
• 1Y: 26.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQM

• 1D: -3.30%
• 1M: -0.42%
• YTD: 16.48%
• 6M: 15.00%
• 1Y: 34.99%
• 3Y*: 26.15%
• 5Y*: 16.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	16.31%	3.09%	4.27%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	16.48%	20.85%	15.91%

Correlation

The correlation between GRPZ and QQQM is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2024	0.54

The correlation between GRPZ and QQQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRPZ	QQQM
Financial Services	28.3%	0.2%
Industrials	16.1%	2.6%
Healthcare	15.8%	3.7%
Energy	12.2%	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	11.8%	11.4%
Technology	7.6%	58.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	6.4%
Basic Materials	2.3%	1.0%
Communication Services	0.8%	14.3%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

GRPZ vs. QQQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRPZ

GRPZ Risk / Return Rank: 50
GRPZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
GRPZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
GRPZ Omega Ratio Rank: 42
GRPZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
GRPZ Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) 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.

	GRPZ	QQQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	1.97	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.31	2.58	-0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.35	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.79	2.94	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.97	10.88	-2.91

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRPZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is comparable to the QQQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRPZ 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

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRPZ drawdown since its inception was -27.87%, smaller than the maximum QQQM drawdown of -35.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRPZ and QQQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRPZ	QQQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.87%	-35.04%	+7.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.53%	-11.96%	+2.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.70%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-4.24%	+4.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.86%	-8.20%	+1.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.33%	3.22%	+0.11%

Volatility

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) is 4.07%, while Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) has a volatility of 9.00%. This indicates that GRPZ 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

	GRPZ	QQQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.07%	9.00%	-4.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.85%	14.43%	-2.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.77%	17.85%	-0.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.04%	22.53%	-1.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.04%	22.30%	-1.26%

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRPZ has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRPZ vs. QQQM - Dividend Comparison

GRPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.93%, more than QQQM's 0.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	0.93%	0.97%	0.73%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.44%	0.50%	0.61%	0.65%	0.83%	0.40%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRPZ and QQQM in my portfolio?

GRPZ and QQQM have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GRPZ or QQQM?

QQQM has higher volatility (9.00%) compared to GRPZ (4.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPZ dropped -27.87% vs QQQM's -35.04%.

Which ETF is better, GRPZ or QQQM?

On 1-year performance, QQQM leads with 34.99% vs 26.46% for GRPZ. On fees, QQQM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, GRPZ has been the lower-risk option at 4.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GRPZ or QQQM?

Over the 1-year period, QQQM has performed better with a 34.99% return vs 26.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRPZ or QQQM?

QQQM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GRPZ.

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

GRPZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.44% for QQQM.

What is the main difference between GRPZ and QQQM?

GRPZ is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while QQQM is Nasdaq-100. GRPZ tracks S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index, while QQQM tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GRPZ and 0.15% for QQQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 1.50), 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.