QQQI vs. FWRA.L

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF) and FWRA.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQI is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Neos, while FWRA.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index. QQQI is actively managed, while FWRA.L is passively managed. Over the past year, QQQI returned 25.86% vs 25.89% for FWRA.L. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QQQI charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FWRA.L.

Performance

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQI achieves a 9.93% return, which is significantly higher than FWRA.L's 9.27% return.

QQQI

• 1D: 1.27%
• 1M: -0.05%
• YTD: 9.93%
• 6M: 9.25%
• 1Y: 25.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FWRA.L

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 9.27%
• 6M: 10.72%
• 1Y: 25.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	9.93%	18.62%	19.83%
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	9.27%	22.42%	16.24%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQI and FWRA.L 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 31, 2024	0.56

The correlation between QQQI and FWRA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQI	FWRA.L
Technology	53.3%	29.1%
Communication Services	15.7%	8.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.1%	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	5.0%
Healthcare	4.3%	7.6%
Industrials	3.3%	11.0%
Utilities	1.5%	2.6%
Basic Materials	1.2%	3.9%
Energy	0.7%	4.3%
Financial Services	0.3%	16.4%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.9%

Return for Risk

QQQI vs. FWRA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQI

QQQI Risk / Return Rank: 64
QQQI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
QQQI Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
QQQI Omega Ratio Rank: 66
QQQI Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
QQQI Martin Ratio Rank: 71

FWRA.L

FWRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 71
FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
FWRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FWRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
FWRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
FWRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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. FWRA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L). 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.

	QQQI	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	2.07	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	3.08	-0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.38	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.70	2.95	-0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.98	12.33	-0.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQI Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is comparable to the FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQI and FWRA.L, 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

	QQQI	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.91	2.07	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.22	1.51	-0.29

Drawdowns

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQI drawdown since its inception was -20.00%, which is greater than FWRA.L's maximum drawdown of -16.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQI and FWRA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQI	FWRA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.00%	-16.50%	-3.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.61%	-8.78%	-0.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.26%	-2.75%	-0.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.20%	-1.92%	-0.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.16%	2.10%	+0.06%

Volatility

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) has a higher volatility of 5.07% compared to Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) at 3.90%. This indicates that QQQI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FWRA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQI	FWRA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.07%	3.90%	+1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.75%	9.98%	+0.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.65%	12.55%	+1.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.25%	13.63%	+3.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.25%	13.63%	+3.62%

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQI has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than FWRA.L's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQI vs. FWRA.L - Dividend Comparison

QQQI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.61%, while FWRA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	13.61%	13.82%	12.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQI and FWRA.L in my portfolio?

QQQI and FWRA.L 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 ETF is better, QQQI or FWRA.L?

On fees, FWRA.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQI or FWRA.L?

FWRA.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQI.

What is the main difference between QQQI and FWRA.L?

QQQI is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while FWRA.L is Global Equities. They also come from different issuers: Neos and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQI and 0.15% for FWRA.L.