QQQM vs. NVDG.F

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF) is Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while NVDG.F (NVIDIA Corporation CDR) is a stock. Over the past 3 years, QQQM returned 26.52%/yr vs 68.42%/yr for NVDG.F. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

QQQM vs. NVDG.F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) and NVIDIA Corporation CDR (NVDG.F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

QQQM is traded in USD, while NVDG.F is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the NVDG.F values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQM achieves a 17.59% return, which is significantly higher than NVDG.F's 13.45% return.

QQQM

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 0.97%
• YTD: 17.59%
• 6M: 17.91%
• 1Y: 35.90%
• 3Y*: 26.52%
• 5Y*: 16.94%
• 10Y*: —

NVDG.F

• 1D: -2.74%
• 1M: -2.32%
• YTD: 13.45%
• 6M: 17.63%
• 1Y: 41.10%
• 3Y*: 68.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQQM vs. NVDG.F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	17.59%	20.85%	25.68%	55.01%	-21.40%
NVDG.F NVIDIA Corporation CDR	13.45%	35.40%	159.49%	239.31%	-40.96%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQM and NVDG.F is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 2, 2022	0.34

The correlation between QQQM and NVDG.F shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.41 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QQQM vs. NVDG.F — 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

NVDG.F

NVDG.F Risk / Return Rank: 71
NVDG.F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
NVDG.F Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
NVDG.F Omega Ratio Rank: 65
NVDG.F Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
NVDG.F Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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. NVDG.F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) and NVIDIA Corporation CDR (NVDG.F). 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	NVDG.F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.09	+1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	1.64	+1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.20	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.02	2.22	+0.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.23	5.19	+6.04

QQQM vs. NVDG.F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQM Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the NVDG.F Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQM and NVDG.F, 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. NVDG.F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQM drawdown since its inception was -35.04%, smaller than the maximum NVDG.F drawdown of -64.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQM and NVDG.F.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQM	NVDG.F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.04%	-64.73%	+29.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.96%	-20.95%	+8.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.70%	-39.19%	+16.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.33%	-10.91%	+7.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.23%	-16.94%	+8.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.21%	8.99%	-5.78%

Volatility

QQQM vs. NVDG.F - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) is 7.45%, while NVIDIA Corporation CDR (NVDG.F) has a volatility of 12.52%. This indicates that QQQM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NVDG.F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQM	NVDG.F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.45%	12.52%	-5.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.71%	29.29%	-15.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.11%	43.26%	-26.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.40%	62.45%	-40.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.22%	62.45%	-40.23%

Dividends

QQQM vs. NVDG.F - Dividend Comparison

QQQM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.43%, more than NVDG.F's 0.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
NVDG.F NVIDIA Corporation CDR	0.11%	0.02%	0.02%	0.03%	0.07%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.43%	0.50%	0.61%	0.65%	0.83%	0.40%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQM and NVDG.F in my portfolio?

QQQM and NVDG.F have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.