QQQI vs. FCOM

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF) and FCOM (Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQI is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Neos, while FCOM is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Telecommunication Services 25/50 Index. QQQI is actively managed, while FCOM is passively managed. Over the past year, QQQI returned 27.00% vs 16.02% for FCOM. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QQQI charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FCOM.

Performance

QQQI vs. FCOM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQI achieves a 10.58% return, which is significantly higher than FCOM's -3.17% return.

QQQI

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: -0.22%
• YTD: 10.58%
• 6M: 11.20%
• 1Y: 27.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FCOM

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -5.25%
• YTD: -3.17%
• 6M: -1.90%
• 1Y: 16.02%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 6.79%
• 10Y*: 11.60%

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

QQQI vs. FCOM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	10.58%	18.62%	19.44%
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	-3.17%	26.06%	23.80%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQI and FCOM is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2024	0.72

The correlation between QQQI and FCOM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQI vs. FCOM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQI	FCOM
Technology	58.1%	1.7%
Communication Services	14.2%	98.0%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	-
Healthcare	3.9%	-
Industrials	3.0%	-
Utilities	1.3%	-
Basic Materials	1.0%	-
Energy	0.5%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QQQI vs. FCOM — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQI

QQQI Risk / Return Rank: 65
QQQI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
QQQI Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
QQQI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
QQQI Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QQQI Martin Ratio Rank: 72

FCOM

FCOM Risk / Return Rank: 30
FCOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FCOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FCOM Omega Ratio Rank: 29
FCOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FCOM Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

QQQI vs. FCOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM). 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.

	QQQI	FCOM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.84	0.97	+0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	1.49	+0.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.18	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.70	1.11	+1.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.63	4.05	+7.58

QQQI vs. FCOM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQI Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is higher than the FCOM Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQI and FCOM, 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

QQQI vs. FCOM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQI drawdown since its inception was -20.00%, smaller than the maximum FCOM drawdown of -46.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQI and FCOM.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQI	FCOM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.00%	-46.76%	+26.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.61%	-13.48%	+3.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-21.16%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-46.76%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.69%	-6.40%	+3.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.21%	-8.66%	+6.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	3.68%	-1.45%

Volatility

QQQI vs. FCOM - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) has a higher volatility of 6.10% compared to Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) at 4.08%. This indicates that QQQI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCOM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQI	FCOM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.10%	4.08%	+2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.35%	11.19%	+0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.10%	15.43%	-1.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.34%	21.19%	-3.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.34%	20.96%	-3.62%

QQQI vs. FCOM - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQI has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than FCOM's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQI vs. FCOM - Dividend Comparison

QQQI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.53%, more than FCOM's 0.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	0.96%	0.88%	0.87%	0.77%	1.04%	0.90%	0.68%	0.86%	2.78%	11.70%	2.27%	2.92%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	13.53%	13.82%	12.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQI and FCOM in my portfolio?

QQQI and FCOM have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQQI or FCOM?

QQQI has higher volatility (6.10%) compared to FCOM (4.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQI dropped -20.00% vs FCOM's -46.76%.

Which ETF is better, QQQI or FCOM?

On 1-year performance, QQQI leads with 27.00% vs 16.02% for FCOM. On fees, FCOM is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FCOM has been the lower-risk option at 4.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQI or FCOM?

Over the 1-year period, QQQI has performed better with a 27.00% return vs 16.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQI or FCOM?

FCOM is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QQQI or FCOM?

QQQI has the higher dividend yield at 13.53%, compared with 0.96% for FCOM.

What is the main difference between QQQI and FCOM?

QQQI is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while FCOM is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Neos and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQI and 0.08% for FCOM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.97), 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.