QQQG vs. QQMG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

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

Performance

QQQG vs. QQMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) 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, QQQG achieves a 31.21% return, which is significantly higher than QQMG's 21.45% return.

QQQG

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

QQMG

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

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

QQQG vs. QQMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

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

QQQG vs. QQMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

QQQG vs. QQMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

QQQG vs. QQMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) 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.

	QQQG	QQMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.58	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	3.35	-0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.43	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.01	3.42	-0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.82	12.72	-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.

QQQG vs. QQMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

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

Drawdowns

QQQG vs. QQMG - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

QQQG vs. QQMG - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a higher volatility of 5.39% compared to Invesco ESG NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQMG) at 4.80%. This indicates that QQQG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

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

QQQG vs. QQMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QQQG vs. QQMG - Dividend Comparison

QQQG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than QQMG's 0.34% 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 QQQG and QQMG in my portfolio?

QQQG and QQMG 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, QQQG or QQMG?

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

Which ETF is better, QQQG or QQMG?

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, QQQG or QQMG?

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, QQQG or QQMG?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between QQQG and QQMG?

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

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.