QQH vs. GINN

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

QQH (HCM Defender 100 Index ETF) and GINN (Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF) are both Technology Equities funds - QQH tracks the HCM Defender 100 Index while GINN tracks the Solactive Innovative Global Equity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QQH returned 13.90%/yr vs 6.27%/yr for GINN. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QQH charges 1.14%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for GINN.

Performance

QQH vs. GINN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) and Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQH achieves a 11.98% return, which is significantly higher than GINN's 6.61% return.

QQH

• 1D: 3.12%
• 1M: 2.51%
• YTD: 11.98%
• 6M: 11.43%
• 1Y: 37.14%
• 3Y*: 23.04%
• 5Y*: 13.90%
• 10Y*: —

GINN

• 1D: 1.05%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 6.61%
• 6M: 6.10%
• 1Y: 23.04%
• 3Y*: 17.66%
• 5Y*: 6.27%
• 10Y*: —

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

QQH vs. GINN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	11.98%	15.66%	33.64%	48.05%	-39.60%	37.52%	9.34%
GINN Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF	6.61%	20.25%	18.71%	29.94%	-32.40%	10.39%	8.08%

Correlation

The correlation between QQH and GINN is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 9, 2020	0.82

The correlation between QQH and GINN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QQH vs. GINN — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQH

QQH Risk / Return Rank: 45
QQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
QQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
QQH Omega Ratio Rank: 45
QQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
QQH Martin Ratio Rank: 39

GINN

GINN Risk / Return Rank: 38
GINN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GINN Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
GINN Omega Ratio Rank: 37
GINN Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
GINN Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

QQH vs. GINN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) and Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN). 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.

	QQH	GINN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.35	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	1.90	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.24	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.25	1.70	+0.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.00	5.99	+0.01

QQH vs. GINN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQH Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the GINN Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQH and GINN, 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

QQH vs. GINN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQH drawdown since its inception was -41.87%, roughly equal to the maximum GINN drawdown of -41.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQH and GINN.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQH	GINN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.87%	-41.25%	-0.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.18%	-13.18%	-3.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.84%	-22.25%	-2.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.87%	-41.25%	-0.62%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.99%	-3.47%	+0.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.88%	-13.29%	+0.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.06%	3.73%	+2.33%

Volatility

QQH vs. GINN - Volatility Comparison

HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) has a higher volatility of 11.15% compared to Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN) at 5.95%. This indicates that QQH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GINN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQH	GINN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.15%	5.95%	+5.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.59%	12.96%	+4.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.73%	16.53%	+6.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.94%	21.42%	+0.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.96%	21.08%	+3.88%

QQH vs. GINN - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQH has a 1.14% expense ratio, which is higher than GINN's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQH vs. GINN - Dividend Comparison

QQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.19%, less than GINN's 1.18% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GINN Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF	1.18%	1.26%	1.26%	1.01%	0.69%	0.67%	0.07%	0.00%
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	0.19%	0.21%	0.24%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQH and GINN in my portfolio?

QQH and GINN have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQH or GINN?

QQH has higher volatility (11.15%) compared to GINN (5.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQH dropped -41.87% vs GINN's -41.25%.

Which ETF is better, QQH or GINN?

On 5-year performance, QQH leads with 13.90% vs 6.27% for GINN. On fees, GINN is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, GINN has been the lower-risk option at 5.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQH or GINN?

Over the 5-year period, QQH has performed better with a 13.90% return vs 6.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQH or GINN?

GINN is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for QQH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QQH or GINN?

GINN has the higher dividend yield at 1.18%, compared with 0.19% for QQH.

What is the main difference between QQH and GINN?

QQH tracks HCM Defender 100 Index, while GINN tracks Solactive Innovative Global Equity Index. They also come from different issuers: Howard Capital Management and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 1.14% for QQH and 0.50% for GINN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 1.35), 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.