TMFC vs. QQQM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

TMFC (Motley Fool 100 Index ETF) and QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFC is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Motley Fool 100 Index, while QQQM is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFC returned 14.51%/yr vs 17.04%/yr for QQQM. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. TMFC charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QQQM.

Performance

TMFC vs. QQQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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, TMFC achieves a 5.63% return, which is significantly lower than QQQM's 20.46% return.

TMFC

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: -2.18%
• YTD: 5.63%
• 6M: 5.27%
• 1Y: 23.51%
• 3Y*: 24.09%
• 5Y*: 14.51%
• 10Y*: —

QQQM

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 2.98%
• YTD: 20.46%
• 6M: 19.51%
• 1Y: 41.06%
• 3Y*: 27.57%
• 5Y*: 17.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

TMFC vs. QQQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	5.63%	19.55%	35.17%	47.04%	-30.86%	25.30%	5.51%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	20.46%	20.85%	25.68%	55.01%	-32.52%	27.45%	6.64%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFC and QQQM is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020	0.97

The correlation between TMFC and QQQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

TMFC vs. QQQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFC	QQQM
Technology	44.5%	58.7%
Communication Services	16.6%	14.3%
Financial Services	12.1%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	11.4%
Healthcare	4.4%	3.7%
Industrials	4.0%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	6.4%
Energy	1.7%	0.5%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	0.6%	1.0%
Utilities	0.4%	1.2%

Return for Risk

TMFC vs. QQQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFC

TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 45
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 47
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 43

QQQM

QQQM Risk / Return Rank: 72
QQQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
QQQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
QQQM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
QQQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QQQM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

TMFC vs. QQQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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.

	TMFC	QQQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	2.36	-0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.28	3.05	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.41	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.87	3.45	-1.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.78	12.82	-6.04

TMFC vs. QQQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the QQQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFC 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

TMFC vs. QQQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, smaller than the maximum QQQM drawdown of -35.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and QQQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFC	QQQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.06%	-35.04%	+1.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.64%	-11.96%	-0.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.06%	-22.70%	+2.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.06%	-35.04%	+1.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.67%	-0.97%	-2.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.75%	-8.20%	+1.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.48%	3.21%	+0.27%

Volatility

TMFC vs. QQQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) is 5.31%, while Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) has a volatility of 8.28%. This indicates that TMFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMFC	QQQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.31%	8.28%	-2.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.15%	14.05%	-2.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.24%	17.55%	-3.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.48%	22.48%	-2.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.00%	22.26%	-0.26%

TMFC vs. QQQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFC vs. QQQM - Dividend Comparison

TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, less than QQQM's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.53%	0.50%	0.61%	0.65%	0.83%	0.40%	0.16%	0.00%	0.00%
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	0.14%	0.14%	0.40%	0.26%	0.27%	0.23%	0.42%	0.50%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFC and QQQM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, TMFC and QQQM 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, TMFC or QQQM?

QQQM has higher volatility (8.28%) compared to TMFC (5.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs QQQM's -35.04%.

Which ETF is better, TMFC or QQQM?

On 5-year performance, QQQM leads with 17.04% vs 14.51% for TMFC. On fees, QQQM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, TMFC has been the lower-risk option at 5.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFC or QQQM?

Over the 5-year period, QQQM has performed better with a 17.04% return vs 14.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFC or QQQM?

QQQM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TMFC.

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

QQQM has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.14% for TMFC.

What is the main difference between TMFC and QQQM?

TMFC is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QQQM is Nasdaq-100. TMFC tracks Motley Fool 100 Index, while QQQM tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TMFC and 0.15% for QQQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.66), 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.