Updated 13 October 2026. Holdings dates differ and are shown below. Performance uses a common ending date of 9 October 2026.
VUG and QQQ share many familiar names, so it is easy to think they are two versions of the same investment. Both give you substantial exposure to large technology-related businesses. But they choose their holdings in different ways.
VUG is a low-cost US large-cap growth fund. QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100, which selects large non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq. Choosing between them starts with the exposure you want, rather than simply picking the fund with the strongest recent return.
VUG vs QQQ at a glance
| Feature | VUG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund name | Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF | Invesco QQQ ETF |
| Benchmark | Morningstar US Large Cap Growth, formerly CRSP | Nasdaq-100 |
| Main focus | US large-cap growth stocks | Large Nasdaq-listed non-financial companies |
| Annual expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.18% |
| Management | Passive index tracking | Passive index tracking |
| Inception | 26 January 2004 | 10 March 1999 |
| Financial companies eligible? | Yes, subject to index rules | Excluded by index rules |
| Non-US companies eligible? | US equity universe | Yes, if Nasdaq-100 requirements are met |
VUG’s name now includes “Morningstar”, following the 2026 rebranding of the CRSP index family. Its ticker remains VUG. QQQ’s fee fell from 0.20% to 0.18% when it moved to an open-end fund structure in December 2025.
How their selection rules differ
| Question | VUG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Why is a company included? | It qualifies for the index’s US large-cap growth universe. | It qualifies for the Nasdaq-100’s size, listing and eligibility rules. |
| Must it be listed on Nasdaq? | No. | Yes. |
| Is it a pure technology fund? | No; it can hold growth stocks across sectors. | No; the index also includes non-technology businesses. |
| Does “growth” describe an explicit style selection? | Yes. | QQQ often behaves like a growth portfolio, but it follows the Nasdaq-100 rules. |
| Does it cover the whole US market? | No. | No. |
A company can be a successful growth business and still be absent from QQQ because it is listed on a different exchange. VUG’s opportunity set is not restricted in that way. That does not automatically make VUG more diversified: the weights of its largest positions still matter.
QQQ’s ability to hold non-US companies also does not make it a broad international fund. For meaningful geographic diversification, look at the portfolio’s actual exposure rather than the eligibility rule alone.
Fees: what you pay on US$10,000
| Investment value | VUG at 0.03% | QQQ at 0.18% | VUG’s annual saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| US$10,000 | US$3 | US$18 | US$15 |
| US$50,000 | US$15 | US$90 | US$75 |
| US$100,000 | US$30 | US$180 | US$150 |
Fund expenses are deducted from the fund’s assets, rather than sent to you as a separate annual bill. VUG has a clear cost advantage, but it owns a different portfolio. Lower fees help; they do not guarantee higher returns.
Top 10 holdings and concentration
These are the ten largest individual security positions, with Alphabet’s share classes shown separately. VUG’s snapshot is dated 31 August 2026; QQQ’s is dated 9 October 2026. The different dates mean this is a comparison of published snapshots, not a same-day overlap calculation.
| Rank | VUG holding | Weight | QQQ holding | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NVIDIA | 13.62% | NVIDIA | 8.24% |
| 2 | Apple | 12.49% | Apple | 7.33% |
| 3 | Microsoft | 10.12% | Microsoft | 5.93% |
| 4 | Alphabet Class A | 5.34% | Micron Technology | 4.78% |
| 5 | Amazon | 4.76% | Amazon | 4.22% |
| 6 | Alphabet Class C | 4.21% | Advanced Micro Devices | 4.09% |
| 7 | Broadcom | 4.10% | Meta Platforms | 3.19% |
| 8 | Meta Platforms | 3.39% | Alphabet Class A | 3.08% |
| 9 | Tesla | 2.79% | Tesla | 3.00% |
| 10 | Eli Lilly | 2.64% | SpaceX | 2.87% |
| Sum of displayed weights | — | 63.46% | — | 46.73% |
The shared names explain why buying both may add less diversification than expected. You would still have considerable exposure to the same businesses and to changes in investor enthusiasm for technology and growth stocks.
The top-ten percentages should not be treated as a complete risk score. Sector exposure, company valuations, the remaining holdings and changes in index weights also matter. A fund with more holdings can still be heavily driven by a few large positions.
Performance over matching periods
The following table uses the same ending date for both funds. Multi-year returns are annualized: they show the compounded average return per year, rather than the total gain across the period.
| Period ending 9 October 2026 | VUG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 year to date | 13.47% | 22.71% |
| 1 year | 13.91% | 23.60% |
| 3 years, annualized | 26.11% | 27.74% |
| 5 years, annualized | 14.02% | 16.47% |
| 10 years, annualized | 18.28% | 21.12% |
QQQ led across the periods shown. That is a useful description of what happened, but it does not establish that its future returns will be higher or that the two funds carry equal risk.
What would US$10,000 have grown to?
| Holding period ending 9 October 2026 | VUG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 3 years | US$20,058 | US$20,845 |
| 5 years | US$19,268 | US$21,432 |
| 10 years | US$53,610 | US$67,956 |
Each row starts with a single US$10,000 investment, with dividends reinvested and no extra deposits or withdrawals. Personal taxes and trading costs are excluded. For a Singapore investor, USD/SGD movements would also affect the value measured in Singapore dollars. These figures are historical examples, not forecasts.
Calendar-year returns: both can fall sharply
| Year | VUG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 40.25% | 48.62% |
| 2021 | 27.35% | 27.42% |
| 2022 | −33.16% | −32.58% |
| 2023 | 46.83% | 54.86% |
| 2024 | 32.69% | 25.58% |
| 2025 | 19.40% | 20.77% |
Both lost roughly a third of their value in 2022. VUG then outperformed QQQ in 2024, showing that the leader can change even during a strong market. Neither fund protects your capital when growth stocks fall out of favour.
A long-term average hides the order of the gains and losses. If you need to sell during a downturn, you cannot rely on a later recovery to meet today’s spending needs. Decide how much volatility you can tolerate before choosing the fund.
If you prefer Nasdaq-100 exposure, consider QQQM too
Invesco Nasdaq 100 ETF (QQQM) tracks the same index as QQQ and charges 0.15%, compared with QQQ’s 0.18%. That is approximately US$3 less a year for every US$10,000 invested, making it worth comparing for a buy-and-hold allocation.
QQQ is heavily traded, which can matter to frequent traders. Check the actual bid–ask spread, trading costs and, if relevant, the liquidity of the specific option contract you plan to trade. High ETF trading volume alone does not guarantee the best execution on every order.
Which fund fits your goal?
| Your priority | What to consider |
|---|---|
| Low-cost US large-cap growth exposure | VUG offers a lower fee and is not limited to Nasdaq listings. |
| Exposure specifically to the Nasdaq-100 | QQQ follows that index; compare QQQM for long-term holding. |
| Frequent trading | Review QQQ’s trading conditions alongside all transaction costs. |
| Diversifying a technology-heavy portfolio | Neither is an obvious solution; examine overlapping companies first. |
| A broad core equity holding | Compare a broad-market fund before adding a concentrated growth tilt. |
| Money needed in the next few years | Both can suffer large losses; match the investment to the spending timeline. |
VUG is a reasonable starting point when your goal is inexpensive US large-cap growth exposure. QQQ makes sense when you specifically want the Nasdaq-100 approach. The more important decision is how much of your portfolio should depend on these businesses doing well.
For related comparisons, see VUG vs VOO and VUG vs VOOG. Singapore-based investors should also consider domicile and tax treatment alongside fees; my S&P 500 ETF guide discusses those considerations.
This article is for general information and is not personal financial advice. Investments can lose value, and past performance does not guarantee future results.
