RSSL vs. QQQS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RSSL (Global X Russell 2000 ETF) and QQQS (Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds - RSSL tracks the Russell 2000 RIC Capped Index while QQQS tracks the Nasdaq Innovators Completion Cap Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RSSL returned 39.24% vs 79.99% for QQQS. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSSL charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QQQS.

Performance

RSSL vs. QQQS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) and Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSSL achieves a 16.97% return, which is significantly lower than QQQS's 27.27% return.

RSSL

• 1D: -1.27%
• 1M: 3.59%
• YTD: 16.97%
• 6M: 15.86%
• 1Y: 39.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQS

• 1D: -1.70%
• 1M: 5.91%
• YTD: 27.27%
• 6M: 27.40%
• 1Y: 79.99%
• 3Y*: 15.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RSSL vs. QQQS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSSL Global X Russell 2000 ETF	16.97%	12.87%	8.83%
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	27.27%	23.03%	9.38%

Correlation

The correlation between RSSL and QQQS is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2024	0.90

The correlation between RSSL and QQQS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

RSSL vs. QQQS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSSL	QQQS
Industrials	17.6%	4.8%
Technology	17.0%	42.1%
Healthcare	16.5%	41.0%
Financial Services	15.8%	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	5.2%
Real Estate	6.1%	-
Energy	6.1%	2.2%
Basic Materials	4.8%	1.0%
Utilities	2.9%	-
Communication Services	2.4%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	1.4%

Return for Risk

RSSL vs. QQQS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSSL

RSSL Risk / Return Rank: 64
RSSL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
RSSL Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
RSSL Omega Ratio Rank: 55
RSSL Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
RSSL Martin Ratio Rank: 69

QQQS

QQQS Risk / Return Rank: 85
QQQS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
QQQS Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
QQQS Omega Ratio Rank: 73
QQQS Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
QQQS Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

RSSL vs. QQQS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) and Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS). 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.

	RSSL	QQQS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	3.00	-0.94
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.87	3.78	-0.92
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.44	-0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	5.90	-2.30
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.70	19.70	-7.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSSL vs. QQQS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSSL Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is lower than the QQQS Sharpe Ratio of 3.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSSL and QQQS, 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

	RSSL	QQQS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	3.00	-0.94
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.90	0.63	+0.27

Drawdowns

RSSL vs. QQQS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSSL drawdown since its inception was -27.79%, smaller than the maximum QQQS drawdown of -38.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSSL and QQQS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSSL	QQQS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.79%	-38.06%	+10.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.93%	-13.63%	+2.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-34.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.42%	-2.55%	+1.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.70%	-13.26%	+7.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.10%	4.07%	-0.97%

Volatility

RSSL vs. QQQS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) is 5.77%, while Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS) has a volatility of 7.39%. This indicates that RSSL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSSL	QQQS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.77%	7.39%	-1.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.50%	18.49%	-4.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.16%	26.90%	-7.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.46%	28.34%	-5.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.46%	28.34%	-5.88%

RSSL vs. QQQS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSSL has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than QQQS's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

RSSL vs. QQQS - Dividend Comparison

RSSL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, less than QQQS's 2.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	2.73%	3.48%	0.80%	0.68%	0.04%
RSSL Global X Russell 2000 ETF	1.28%	1.35%	0.99%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSSL and QQQS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, RSSL and QQQS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, RSSL or QQQS?

QQQS has higher volatility (7.39%) compared to RSSL (5.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSSL dropped -27.79% vs QQQS's -38.06%.

Which ETF is better, RSSL or QQQS?

On 1-year performance, QQQS leads with 79.99% vs 39.24% for RSSL. On fees, RSSL is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, RSSL has been the lower-risk option at 5.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSSL or QQQS?

Over the 1-year period, QQQS has performed better with a 79.99% return vs 39.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSSL or QQQS?

RSSL is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for QQQS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSSL or QQQS?

QQQS has the higher dividend yield at 2.73%, compared with 1.28% for RSSL.

What is the main difference between RSSL and QQQS?

RSSL tracks Russell 2000 RIC Capped Index, while QQQS tracks Nasdaq Innovators Completion Cap Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for RSSL and 0.20% for QQQS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.00 vs 2.06), 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.