QDEC vs. QQMG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QDEC (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December) and QQMG (Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QDEC is actively managed, while QQMG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QDEC returned 17.59%/yr vs 29.63%/yr for QQMG. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QDEC charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QQMG.

Performance

QDEC vs. QQMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) and Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QDEC achieves a 9.56% return, which is significantly lower than QQMG's 21.86% return.

QDEC

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 3.42%
• YTD: 9.56%
• 6M: 10.79%
• 1Y: 25.54%
• 3Y*: 17.59%
• 5Y*: 10.93%
• 10Y*: —

QQMG

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 11.51%
• YTD: 21.86%
• 6M: 20.50%
• 1Y: 44.32%
• 3Y*: 29.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QDEC vs. QQMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	9.56%	18.12%	16.40%	29.29%	-22.26%	3.16%
QQMG Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF	21.86%	22.16%	25.66%	55.00%	-31.56%	5.01%

Correlation

The correlation between QDEC and QQMG is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2021	0.93

The correlation between QDEC and QQMG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

QDEC vs. QQMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QDEC	QQMG
Technology	54.2%	62.1%
Communication Services	15.5%	13.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	11.5%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	6.0%
Healthcare	4.2%	3.5%
Industrials	2.8%	2.1%
Utilities	1.4%	0.2%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.4%
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QDEC vs. QQMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QDEC

QDEC Risk / Return Rank: 79
QDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
QDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
QDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
QDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 82

QQMG

QQMG Risk / Return Rank: 74
QQMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
QQMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
QQMG Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QQMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
QQMG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

QDEC vs. QQMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) and Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG). 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.

	QDEC	QQMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	2.66	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.71	3.43	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.44	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.39	3.51	-0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.17	13.08	+3.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QDEC vs. QQMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDEC Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the QQMG Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDEC and QQMG, 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

	QDEC	QQMG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63	2.66	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.78	0.74	+0.04

Drawdowns

QDEC vs. QQMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDEC drawdown since its inception was -25.25%, smaller than the maximum QQMG drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDEC and QQMG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QDEC	QQMG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.25%	-35.43%	+10.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.58%	-12.67%	+5.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.08%	-22.79%	+6.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-0.41%	+0.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.04%	-9.61%	+4.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.58%	3.40%	-1.82%

Volatility

QDEC vs. QQMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December (QDEC) is 1.37%, while Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG) has a volatility of 4.76%. This indicates that QDEC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QDEC	QQMG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.37%	4.76%	-3.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.56%	12.90%	-5.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.78%	16.77%	-6.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.70%	23.60%	-8.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.61%	23.60%	-8.99%

QDEC vs. QQMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDEC has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than QQMG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

QDEC vs. QQMG - Dividend Comparison

QDEC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QDEC FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF – December	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQMG Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.34%	0.41%	0.50%	0.60%	0.82%	0.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QDEC and QQMG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, QDEC and QQMG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QDEC or QQMG?

QQMG has higher volatility (4.76%) compared to QDEC (1.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDEC dropped -25.25% vs QQMG's -35.43%.

Which ETF is better, QDEC or QQMG?

On 3-year performance, QQMG leads with 29.63% vs 17.59% for QDEC. On fees, QQMG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, QDEC has been the lower-risk option at 1.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QDEC or QQMG?

Over the 3-year period, QQMG has performed better with a 29.63% return vs 17.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QDEC or QQMG?

QQMG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QDEC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QDEC or QQMG?

QQMG has the higher dividend yield at 0.34%, compared with 0.00% for QDEC.

What is the main difference between QDEC and QQMG?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QDEC and 0.20% for QQMG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 2.63), 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.