QQQA vs. QQQG

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

QQQA (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF) and QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QQQA is passively managed, while QQQG is actively managed. Over the past year, QQQA returned 87.84% vs 43.53% for QQQG. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QQQA charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for QQQG.

Performance

QQQA vs. QQQG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA) 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, QQQA achieves a 65.39% return, which is significantly higher than QQQG's 34.07% return.

QQQA

• 1D: 1.95%
• 1M: 7.50%
• YTD: 65.39%
• 6M: 61.39%
• 1Y: 87.84%
• 3Y*: 34.29%
• 5Y*: 14.43%
• 10Y*: —

QQQG

• 1D: 3.15%
• 1M: 6.00%
• YTD: 34.07%
• 6M: 31.36%
• 1Y: 43.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQQA vs. QQQG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF	65.39%	9.87%	6.79%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	34.07%	14.72%	1.68%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQA and QQQG is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2024	0.88

The correlation between QQQA and QQQG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQA vs. QQQG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQA	QQQG
Technology	78.6%	74.2%
Communication Services	6.7%	5.2%
Energy	6.0%	2.3%
Healthcare	5.4%	10.4%
Consumer Cyclical	3.3%	3.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	2.0%
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	2.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

QQQA vs. QQQG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQA

QQQA Risk / Return Rank: 91
QQQA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QQQA Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QQQA Omega Ratio Rank: 88
QQQA Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QQQA Martin Ratio Rank: 93

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 68
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 66
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QQQG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

QQQA vs. QQQG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA) 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.

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.

	QQQA	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.92	1.97	+0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.36	2.58	+0.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.34	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.07	3.17	+2.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.55	11.09	+10.45

QQQA vs. QQQG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQA Sharpe Ratio is 2.92, which is higher than the QQQG Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQA 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.

Drawdowns

QQQA vs. QQQG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQA drawdown since its inception was -38.44%, which is greater than QQQG's maximum drawdown of -23.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQA and QQQG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQA	QQQG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.44%	-23.61%	-14.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.54%	-13.79%	-0.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.47%	-2.05%	-3.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.53%	-3.57%	-11.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	3.94%	+0.15%

Volatility

QQQA vs. QQQG - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA) has a higher volatility of 16.88% compared to Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) at 11.56%. This indicates that QQQA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQQG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQA	QQQG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.88%	11.56%	+5.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.73%	18.92%	+7.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.28%	22.25%	+8.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.74%	24.40%	+2.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.54%	24.40%	+2.14%

QQQA vs. QQQG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQA has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQA vs. QQQG - Dividend Comparison

QQQA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%, less than QQQG's 0.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF	0.02%	0.10%	0.09%	0.34%	0.28%	0.10%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.05%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQA and QQQG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, QQQA and QQQG 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, QQQA or QQQG?

QQQA has higher volatility (16.88%) compared to QQQG (11.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQA dropped -38.44% vs QQQG's -23.61%.

Which ETF is better, QQQA or QQQG?

On 1-year performance, QQQA leads with 87.84% vs 43.53% for QQQG. On fees, QQQG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, QQQG has been the lower-risk option at 11.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQA or QQQG?

Over the 1-year period, QQQA has performed better with a 87.84% return vs 43.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQA or QQQG?

QQQG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for QQQA.

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

QQQG has the higher dividend yield at 0.05%, compared with 0.02% for QQQA.

What is the main difference between QQQA and QQQG?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for QQQA and 0.49% for QQQG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 vs 1.97), 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.