QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (QQQQ.TO) and iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF (COW.TO).

QQQQ.TO and COW.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. QQQQ.TO is a passively managed fund by Mackenzie that tracks the performance of the NASDAQ-100 Index. It was launched on Aug 19, 2025. COW.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Manulife Investment Management Global Agriculture Index. It was launched on Dec 19, 2007. Both QQQQ.TO and COW.TO are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (QQQQ.TO) and iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF (COW.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QQQQ.TO Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF	-6.15%	7.64%
COW.TO iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF	21.04%	-9.81%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQQ.TO achieves a -6.15% return, which is significantly lower than COW.TO's 21.04% return.

QQQQ.TO

• 1D: 2.02%
• 1M: -4.24%
• YTD: -6.15%
• 6M: -4.89%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COW.TO

• 1D: 0.54%
• 1M: 0.60%
• YTD: 21.04%
• 6M: 17.11%
• 1Y: 16.02%
• 3Y*: 6.17%
• 5Y*: 5.09%
• 10Y*: 9.75%

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

QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQQ.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than COW.TO's 0.72% expense ratio.

COW.TO

iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF

QQQQ.TO

Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF

Return for Risk

QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

COW.TO

COW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 43
COW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
COW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
COW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 40
COW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
COW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (QQQQ.TO) and iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF (COW.TO). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QQQQ.TO	COW.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	0.88	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.27	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	0.37	-0.25

Correlation

The correlation between QQQQ.TO and COW.TO is -0.02. This indicates that the assets' prices tend to move in opposite directions. Negative correlation can be particularly beneficial for diversification and risk management, as one asset may offset the losses of the other during market fluctuations.

Dividends

QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Dividend Comparison

QQQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, less than COW.TO's 1.99% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QQQQ.TO Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF	0.12%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
COW.TO iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF	1.99%	2.40%	1.43%	1.62%	2.03%	0.69%	1.02%	1.02%	1.07%	0.58%	1.10%	1.78%

Drawdowns

QQQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -11.95%, smaller than the maximum COW.TO drawdown of -55.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQQ.TO and COW.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQQ.TO	COW.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.95%	-55.00%	+43.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-11.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.82%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.17%	-3.01%	-7.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.94%	-14.01%	+10.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.11%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	QQQQ.TO	COW.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.22%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	12.34%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.52%	18.26%	-1.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.52%	18.95%	-2.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.52%	19.28%	-2.76%