QQQM vs. EFA

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF) and EFA (iShares MSCI EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQM is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while EFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QQQM returned 16.94%/yr vs 8.36%/yr for EFA. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QQQM charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.32%/yr for EFA.

Performance

QQQM vs. EFA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQM achieves a 17.59% return, which is significantly higher than EFA's 9.36% return.

QQQM

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 17.59%
• 6M: 17.91%
• 1Y: 37.64%
• 3Y*: 26.52%
• 5Y*: 16.94%
• 10Y*: —

EFA

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 1.51%
• YTD: 9.36%
• 6M: 10.80%
• 1Y: 21.90%
• 3Y*: 16.14%
• 5Y*: 8.36%
• 10Y*: 9.84%

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

QQQM vs. EFA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	17.59%	20.85%	25.68%	55.01%	-32.52%	27.45%	6.64%
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE ETF	9.36%	31.55%	3.49%	18.36%	-14.39%	11.45%	11.52%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQM and EFA is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020	0.67

The correlation between QQQM and EFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQM vs. EFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQM	EFA
Technology	58.7%	12.1%
Communication Services	14.3%	4.6%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	7.4%
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	6.7%
Healthcare	3.7%	10.1%
Industrials	2.6%	18.9%
Utilities	1.2%	3.7%
Basic Materials	1.0%	6.2%
Energy	0.5%	3.8%
Financial Services	0.2%	24.1%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.6%

Return for Risk

QQQM vs. EFA — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQM

QQQM Risk / Return Rank: 72
QQQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
QQQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QQQM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
QQQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
QQQM Martin Ratio Rank: 70

EFA

EFA Risk / Return Rank: 42
EFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
EFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
EFA Omega Ratio Rank: 41
EFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
EFA Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

QQQM vs. EFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA). 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.

	QQQM	EFA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.31	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	1.91	+0.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.24	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.02	1.79	+1.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.23	6.67	+4.56

QQQM vs. EFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQM Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the EFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQM and EFA, 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

QQQM vs. EFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQM drawdown since its inception was -35.04%, smaller than the maximum EFA drawdown of -61.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQM and EFA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQM	EFA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.04%	-61.04%	+26.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.96%	-11.42%	-0.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.70%	-14.05%	-8.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.04%	-29.53%	-5.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.19%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.33%	-0.61%	-2.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.23%	-11.92%	+3.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.21%	3.07%	+0.14%

Volatility

QQQM vs. EFA - Volatility Comparison

Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) has a higher volatility of 7.45% compared to iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) at 5.50%. This indicates that QQQM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQM	EFA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.45%	5.50%	+1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.71%	13.19%	+0.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.11%	15.64%	+1.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.40%	16.58%	+5.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.22%	17.27%	+4.95%

QQQM vs. EFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQM has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than EFA's 0.32% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQM vs. EFA - Dividend Comparison

QQQM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.43%, less than EFA's 3.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE ETF	3.09%	3.38%	3.24%	2.98%	2.69%	3.33%	2.13%	3.10%	3.39%	2.57%	3.07%	2.76%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.43%	0.50%	0.61%	0.65%	0.83%	0.40%	0.16%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQM and EFA in my portfolio?

QQQM and EFA have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQQM or EFA?

QQQM has higher volatility (7.45%) compared to EFA (5.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQM dropped -35.04% vs EFA's -61.04%.

Which ETF is better, QQQM or EFA?

On 5-year performance, QQQM leads with 16.94% vs 8.36% for EFA. On fees, QQQM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, EFA has been the lower-risk option at 5.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQM or EFA?

Over the 5-year period, QQQM has performed better with a 16.94% return vs 8.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQM or EFA?

QQQM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for EFA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QQQM or EFA?

EFA has the higher dividend yield at 3.09%, compared with 0.43% for QQQM.

What is the main difference between QQQM and EFA?

QQQM is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while EFA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. QQQM tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while EFA tracks MSCI EAFE Index (Net). They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QQQM and 0.32% for EFA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.31), 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.