TAN vs. QQQM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TAN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while QQQM is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TAN returned -7.06%/yr vs 16.11%/yr for QQQM. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QQQM.

Performance

TAN vs. QQQM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TAN achieves a 19.22% return, which is significantly higher than QQQM's 16.48% return.

TAN

• 1D: -4.17%
• 1M: -11.21%
• YTD: 19.22%
• 6M: 16.19%
• 1Y: 82.66%
• 3Y*: -4.69%
• 5Y*: -7.06%
• 10Y*: 12.35%

QQQM

• 1D: -3.30%
• 1M: -0.42%
• YTD: 16.48%
• 6M: 15.00%
• 1Y: 34.99%
• 3Y*: 26.15%
• 5Y*: 16.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

TAN vs. QQQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	19.22%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-25.10%	40.67%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	16.48%	20.85%	25.68%	55.01%	-32.52%	27.45%	6.64%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and QQQM is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020	0.51

The correlation between TAN and QQQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

TAN vs. QQQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TAN	QQQM
Technology	65.1%	58.7%
Energy	57.3%	0.5%
Utilities	29.2%	1.2%
Financial Services	3.5%	0.2%
Industrials	2.3%	2.6%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Communication Services	-	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Healthcare	-	3.7%
Real Estate	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

TAN vs. QQQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 68
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 55
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 70

QQQM

QQQM Risk / Return Rank: 60
QQQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
QQQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
QQQM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QQQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
QQQM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

TAN vs. QQQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM). 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.

	TAN	QQQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	1.97	+0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	2.58	+0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.35	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.97	2.94	+1.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.49	10.88	+1.61

TAN vs. QQQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is comparable to the QQQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN and QQQM, 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

TAN vs. QQQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than QQQM's maximum drawdown of -35.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and QQQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	QQQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-35.04%	-60.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.94%	-11.96%	-8.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.40%	-22.70%	-41.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.95%	-35.04%	-38.91%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-73.11%	-4.24%	-68.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.47%	-8.20%	-70.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.64%	3.22%	+3.42%

Volatility

TAN vs. QQQM - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a higher volatility of 16.60% compared to Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) at 9.00%. This indicates that TAN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	QQQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.60%	9.00%	+7.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.78%	14.43%	+14.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.50%	17.85%	+20.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.14%	22.53%	+17.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.16%	22.30%	+15.86%

TAN vs. QQQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. QQQM - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.44%	0.50%	0.61%	0.65%	0.83%	0.40%	0.16%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	0.30%	0.69%	1.77%	5.04%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TAN and QQQM in my portfolio?

TAN and QQQM have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TAN or QQQM?

TAN has higher volatility (16.60%) compared to QQQM (9.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs QQQM's -35.04%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or QQQM?

On 5-year performance, QQQM leads with 16.11% vs -7.06% for TAN. On fees, QQQM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QQQM has been the lower-risk option at 9.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or QQQM?

Over the 5-year period, QQQM has performed better with a 16.11% return vs -7.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or QQQM?

QQQM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

QQQM has the higher dividend yield at 0.44%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between TAN and QQQM?

TAN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while QQQM is Nasdaq-100. TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while QQQM tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.15% for QQQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TAN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 1.97), 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.