QQQ vs. QQQM: Holdings Basket, Fees, and Fund Structure

Both funds seek to track the Nasdaq-100 before fund fees and expenses. The index is designed to include securities of the 100 largest domestic and international non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq-affiliated U.S. exchanges. It does not mean “the 100 largest U.S. stocks,” and financial companies are excluded. Component weights use modified market capitalization, subject to index rules. The SEC’s April 2026 supplement says the index is reweighted quarterly in March, June, September and December, and reconstituted annually in December. Its fast-entry provisions can temporarily lift the constituent count above 100; the QQQM prospectus reported 102 constituents as of October 31, 2025. See the current SEC index-methodology supplement and the QQQM summary prospectus.

QQQ’s prospectus describes full replication: it invests in the index securities in proportion to their index weights. QQQM also describes full replication and generally invests in all index securities in proportion to the index. They are separate funds with separate assets, shares, fees and trading histories, even though they target the same benchmark. Fund cash, transactions, expenses and the timing of portfolio updates can produce small tracking differences. A shared index is strong evidence of similar intended exposure; it is not a promise that every reported position or live market price will match at every moment. The funds’ objectives and strategies appear in the QQQ prospectus and QQQM prospectus.

QQQ’s latest Form N-PORT in this comparison reports positions as of June 30, 2026, under accession 0001067839-26-000030, filed August 28. QQQM’s latest report is as of May 31, 2026, accession 0001378872-26-001400, filed July 30. The filings state different fiscal year ends: September 30 for QQQ and August 31 for QQQM. The SEC report dates, accessions and filed portfolio schedules can be checked in the QQQ filing and QQQM filing.

The dates matter beyond a one-month calendar gap. Nasdaq’s index rules schedule the June quarterly weight adjustment after the third Friday in June. QQQM’s May 31 portfolio snapshot precedes that adjustment; QQQ’s June 30 snapshot follows it. The index methodology update effective May 1 also applied to both funds. A direct subtraction between these tables would mix fund implementation with different market dates and an intervening scheduled index change. A full overlap percentage would therefore imply a same-date comparison that these filings do not provide.

When a same-date holdings comparison is available, match securities by ISIN first, then use CUSIP or LEI where an ISIN is unavailable. Keep share classes such as Alphabet Class A and Class C separate. Here, the displayed tables report each fund’s ten largest equity weights on its own report date; the filed percentages are each position’s share of fund net assets, rounded to two decimal places. The totals use the unrounded SEC figures. They are not a comparison of how much the two baskets overlap.

The QQQ filing reports the following ten largest equity positions. It reports that the ten sum to 45.000247631615% of net assets, shown as 45.00% after rounding.

QQQM’s report uses a different date. Its ten largest equity positions sum to 47.310058% of net assets, shown as 47.31%.

The two top-ten totals should not be read as evidence that QQQM was more concentrated than QQQ. One report is before the June weight adjustment and the other is after it, and the positions are not measured on one shared date. The lists do show a common portfolio pattern: a relatively small group of very large companies accounts for a substantial share of each fund’s reported net assets. That concentration follows the market-cap-weighted Nasdaq-100 design. It does not mean every company has equal influence or that a fund is a technology-only portfolio.

The December 2025 SEC prospectuses list 0.18% annual operating expenses for QQQ and 0.15% for QQQM. Invesco’s current product page continues to display those rates. The gap is 0.03 percentage points, or three basis points—not three percent. See the QQQ fee table, QQQM fee table and Invesco’s current QQQ and QQQM comparison.

For a constant US$10,000 balance, the simple annual arithmetic is:

• QQQ: US$10,000 × 0.0018 = about US$18.
• QQQM: US$10,000 × 0.0015 = about US$15.
• Difference: US$10,000 × 0.0003 = about US$3 per year.

This is a flat-balance illustration, not a separate invoice or a forecast of actual fund expenses. Operating expenses are reflected in fund assets, while the balance changes with market prices and cash flows. The ratio excludes brokerage charges and does not measure the bid-ask spread, taxes, tracking difference or every transaction cost. A small annual fee gap can matter more over longer holding periods, but it should be assessed alongside the price and cost of entering and leaving the position.

Both ETFs trade on an exchange throughout the session. Individual investors normally buy and sell shares at market prices; authorized participants handle large creation and redemption blocks directly with the funds. The market price can differ from NAV, and the actual result depends on the quote, order size, timing and market conditions. QQQ’s SEC prospectus and QQQM’s summary prospectus describe these mechanics and related risks.

Invesco describes QQQ as offering high secondary-market liquidity and QQQM as offering a lower expense ratio for longer holding periods. Those are the sponsor’s product positions, not a promise of the best execution for every trade. For a planned order, compare live bid-ask spreads and depth at the same time and for a similar dollar size. A relative spread can be estimated as (ask − bid) ÷ midpoint × 100. Share volume by itself does not show the price concession for a particular order.

For example, the annual fee advantage of QQQM on US$10,000 is about US$3 if the balance stays constant. If a hypothetical entry-and-exit spread cost were US$9 higher in QQQM than in QQQ for the same dollar amount, it would take about three flat years of that fee difference to offset the added trading cost. This is only a break-even illustration, not a live quote or a claim that either ETF currently has that spread. The ETF trading-volume and liquidity guide explains why order size, market depth and timing matter; the ETF expense-ratio and total-cost guide separates the stated ratio from overall cost.

QQQ’s ticker name still includes “Trust,” and many older pages call it a unit investment trust (UIT). That was its former structure. Shareholders approved a reclassification, effective after market close on December 19, 2025; the prospectus became effective December 22. QQQ is now an open-end management investment company. Invesco said the restructuring reduced QQQ’s annual expense ratio from 0.20% to 0.18% and enabled additional operating capabilities. The current status is set out in the effective QQQ SEC prospectus and Invesco’s reclassification announcement.

QQQM is a series of Invesco Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, which the SEC identifies as an open-end management investment company. That means “QQQ is a UIT while QQQM is open-end” is no longer a correct current distinction. They remain separate ETF funds, but both now sit within open-end structures. The documents still matter: legal structure can govern portfolio operations, such as the capabilities Invesco announced for QQQ, while the benchmark objective remains the Nasdaq-100. QQQM’s trust structure is described in its SEC statement of additional information.

If an account holds QQQ and QQQM together, the two positions target the same index and therefore largely repeat the same intended market exposure. Ticker count is not a measure of independent diversification. To estimate a company’s current combined weight, use same-date current holdings and actual invested dollars: (amount in QQQ × that company’s QQQ weight + amount in QQQM × that company’s QQQM weight) ÷ total invested dollars. The May and June tables above cannot be substituted into that formula as a same-day estimate.

Related Invesco ETFs answer different exposure questions. QEW tracks an equal-weight Nasdaq-100 index and changes the weight pattern rather than merely offering another share class of the same fund. QQQJ targets the next-generation Nasdaq 100 universe. Invesco describes those relationships in its ETF product overview. For a Nasdaq-100 versus broad large-company comparison, QQQ and an S&P 500 ETF such as VOO start from different index rules; the shared mega-cap names do not make their full baskets the same.

The filings answer what each fund reported on its own date. They do not establish exact same-day overlap, current weights, performance, correlation, tracking error, spread or a recommendation. A correct overlap calculation needs complete portfolio holdings on the same date, identifier matching and consistent treatment of cash and non-equity items. The current report-date mismatch, especially across the June reweight, is a reason to wait for comparable reports rather than force an exact number.

For a practical comparison, identify which index exposure you want, check both funds’ current prospectuses and holdings, and compare the fee difference with your expected holding period and actual trade conditions. The snapshot does not show your tax situation, broker charges, other ETF or stock positions, or future performance. It is a dated fund-mechanics comparison, not an investment recommendation.