QQMG vs. QQQG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QQMG (Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF) and QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QQMG is passively managed, while QQQG is actively managed. Over the past year, QQMG returned 43.12% vs 41.31% for QQQG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QQMG charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for QQQG.

Performance

QQMG vs. QQQG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG) 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, QQMG achieves a 21.45% return, which is significantly lower than QQQG's 31.21% return.

QQMG

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 9.97%
• YTD: 21.45%
• 6M: 20.28%
• 1Y: 43.12%
• 3Y*: 29.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQG

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: 14.49%
• YTD: 31.21%
• 6M: 28.95%
• 1Y: 41.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQMG vs. QQQG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQMG Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF	21.45%	22.16%	5.18%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	31.21%	14.72%	2.23%

Correlation

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

QQMG vs. QQQG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQMG	QQQG
Technology	62.1%	68.6%
Communication Services	13.0%	10.2%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.0%	1.5%
Healthcare	3.5%	12.1%
Industrials	2.1%	2.6%
Basic Materials	1.4%	-
Utilities	0.2%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-
Energy	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

QQMG vs. QQQG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQMG

QQMG Risk / Return Rank: 74
QQMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QQMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
QQMG Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QQMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
QQMG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 62
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QQQG Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

QQMG vs. QQQG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG) 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.

	QQMG	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.58	2.11	+0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.35	2.81	+0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.36	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.42	3.01	+0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.72	10.82	+1.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQMG vs. QQQG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQMG Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is comparable to the QQQG Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQMG 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

	QQMG	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.58	2.11	+0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.73	1.17	-0.44

Drawdowns

QQMG vs. QQQG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQMG drawdown since its inception was -35.43%, which is greater than QQQG's maximum drawdown of -23.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQMG and QQQG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQMG	QQQG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.43%	-23.61%	-11.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.67%	-13.79%	+1.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.75%	-0.92%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.60%	-3.59%	-6.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	3.83%	-0.43%

Volatility

QQMG vs. QQQG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG) is 4.80%, while Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a volatility of 5.39%. This indicates that QQMG 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

	QQMG	QQQG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.80%	5.39%	-0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.88%	16.05%	-3.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.77%	19.67%	-2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.59%	23.40%	+0.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.59%	23.40%	+0.19%

QQMG vs. QQQG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQMG has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than QQQG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQMG vs. QQQG - Dividend Comparison

QQMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%, more than QQQG's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QQMG Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.34%	0.41%	0.50%	0.60%	0.82%	0.08%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.06%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQMG and QQQG in my portfolio?

QQMG 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, QQMG or QQQG?

QQQG has higher volatility (5.39%) compared to QQMG (4.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQMG dropped -35.43% vs QQQG's -23.61%.

Which ETF is better, QQMG or QQQG?

On 1-year performance, QQMG leads with 43.12% vs 41.31% for QQQG. On fees, QQMG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, QQMG has been the lower-risk option at 4.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQMG or QQQG?

Over the 1-year period, QQMG has performed better with a 43.12% return vs 41.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQMG or QQQG?

QQMG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for QQQG.

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

QQMG has the higher dividend yield at 0.34%, compared with 0.06% for QQQG.

What is the main difference between QQMG and QQQG?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for QQMG and 0.49% for QQQG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 vs 2.11), 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.