What is the difference between a composite index and a 100 stock index?

A composite index, like the one tracked by ONEQ, generally includes a broader range of companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange, spanning large, mid, and small caps. A 100 stock index, like the one tracked by QQQM, focuses exclusively on the largest non-financial companies. This means the composite approach offers wider market coverage and diversification across market sizes, while the 100 stock approach concentrates on established mega-cap leaders. Investors should consider whether they prefer broader market exposure or a focused large-cap tilt when evaluating these different index strategies.

How does fund size affect liquidity and trading spreads?

Fund size, measured by net assets, influences how easily shares can be bought or sold. QQQM has significantly larger net assets at $105.7 billion compared to ONEQ's $10.8 billion. Larger funds typically benefit from higher daily trading volumes, which often results in tighter bid-ask spreads. This means investors may pay less in hidden trading costs when entering or exiting positions. While ONEQ still provides reliable liquidity given its substantial size, QQQM's greater scale potentially offers more favourable execution for larger orders or frequent traders.

How do the expense ratios compare and what does that mean?

QQQM charges an annual expense ratio of 0.15%, while ONEQ charges 0.21%. This 0.06 percentage point difference might seem small, but it compounds over time. Expense ratios are deducted from fund assets, so a lower fee theoretically allows more of your investment to remain invested and grow. For example, on a $10,000 investment, the annual cost difference is roughly $6 before any growth or market changes. Investors seeking to minimise costs over long holding periods often scrutinise these fee differences as part of their total return analysis.

How concentrated are these funds in technology and large companies?

Both funds exhibit significant concentration in the technology sector and mega-cap names. ONEQ's top holdings include Nvidia at 11.56% and Apple at 10.58%. QQQM's top holdings feature Nvidia at 8.46% and Apple at 7.89%. These substantial single-stock weights mean the performance of these funds is heavily influenced by a few companies. While ONEQ includes more stocks overall, its top positions still dominate the portfolio's risk profile. Investors must consider this concentration when evaluating potential volatility, as losses in these key stocks can disproportionately impact total returns.

What is the difference in dividend yield between the two funds?

ONEQ currently offers a dividend yield of 0.48%, whereas QQQM offers 0.43%. Both yields are relatively low, which is typical for growth-oriented technology funds that prioritise capital appreciation and reinvestment over distributing cash to shareholders. The difference of 0.05 percentage points is minimal and may not be the primary driver for income-focused investors. It is important to remember that dividend yields can fluctuate based on the fund's income distribution and share price changes. Neither fund is designed specifically for generating substantial regular income.

Do these funds have similar top holdings?

Yes, there is considerable overlap in their top ten holdings, reflecting the dominance of large-cap technology and growth stocks in the Nasdaq ecosystem. Shared top-10 holdings include NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, AMZN, GOOGL, GOOG, META, and TSLA. However, the weighting differs. For instance, NVDA is 11.56% in ONEQ versus 8.46% in QQQM. Additionally, QQQM includes MU and AMD in its top ten, which are not listed as top ten in ONEQ's data. This suggests that while the core growth stocks are similar, the specific index construction leads to different top-level exposures.

How does fund history impact data availability?

ONEQ has a much longer operational history, with an inception date of September 25, 2003, providing over two decades of track record data. In contrast, QQQM was launched more recently on October 13, 2020. This longer history allows investors to review how ONEQ performed through various market cycles, including different recessions and expansions. QQQM, despite its massive asset base, has a shorter historical dataset for performance evaluation. While both track similar market segments, the length of historical performance evidence available for analysis differs significantly between the two funds.

Are the sector weights fully transparent for these funds?

According to the available fund data, the specific sector weights for both ONEQ and QQQM are currently marked as not available. While both funds are categorised as Large Growth and heavily tilted towards technology based on top holdings, the exact percentage breakdown by sector is not provided. Investors often look at sector weights to understand diversification within specific industries like tech, healthcare, or consumer services. The lack of disclosed sector weight data means you must infer concentration from the top holding percentages rather than relying on a complete sector map.

Which fund might suit a cost-conscious investor?

For investors prioritising low operating costs, QQQM offers a lower expense ratio of 0.15% compared to ONEQ's 0.21%. In practical terms, this means the fund deducts a smaller percentage of assets annually to cover management and operational fees. Over long periods, this cost difference can accumulate. However, lower fees are just one factor; investors should also consider tracking error, liquidity, and the specific index composition. QQQM's lower fee structure is a notable advantage for those focused on minimising expenses in a large growth equity allocation.

What should investors know about index methodology transparency?

The specific index methodology for both funds is currently listed as not available in the provided data. Understanding index methodology is crucial because it dictates how stocks are selected and weighted. For example, does the index rebalance quarterly or annually? What criteria exclude financial stocks? Without this information, investors cannot fully assess how the fund will react to corporate actions or market changes. This lack of transparency limits the ability to predict tracking accuracy and portfolio construction nuances, requiring reliance on observed holdings rather than structural rules.

ONEQ vs QQQM

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF. This page reviews fees, holdings, dividends, and how each fund tracks its market. OneQ carries a 0.21% expense ratio, while QQQM is 0.15%. Both focus on large growth technology and innovation stocks. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

ONEQ

Metric

QQQM

0.21%

Expense Ratio

0.15%

0.48%

Dividend Yield

0.43%

$10.80B

Net Assets

$105.70B

1,037

Holdings

106

Sep 25, 2003

Inception Date

Oct 13, 2020

–

Index Tracked

–

Large Growth

Fund Category

Large Growth

QQQM costs about $6.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	ONEQ	QQQM
NVDANVIDIA Corporation	11.56%	8.46%
AAPLApple Inc.	10.58%	7.89%
MSFTMicrosoft Corporation	7.91%	5.89%
AMZNAmazon.com, Inc.	5.90%	4.31%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc.	4.43%	3.22%
GOOGAlphabet Inc.	4.11%	2.99%
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.	3.17%	3.22%
TSLATesla, Inc.	3.10%	2.92%

Discover More Comparisons

ONEQ vs QQQ

Compare ONEQ and QQQ on 0.21% and 0.18% expenses, $10.8b and $484.3b assets, 0.48% and 0.41% yields, plus tech-heavy holdings and tracking details.

QQQ vs QQQM

Review QQQ vs QQQM. Compare 0.18% and 0.15% expense ratios, 0.41% and 0.43% yields, top holdings, and tracking. Understand fees, dividends, and performance.

QQQI vs QQQM

Compare QQQI and QQQM by examining their fees, holdings, dividends and tracking. Analyse expense ratios, yields and index methodologies to research further.

Investment Analysis

ONEQ

Pros

ONEQ offers access to a broader selection of stocks within the Nasdaq universe, extending beyond just the largest names, and thus providing more extensive diversification.
The fund has maintained a long operational history since 2003, providing investors with more than two decades of a proven track record in tracking the index.
With significant net assets totalling $10.8 billion, the fund possesses the necessary scale to ensure reliable daily liquidity and consistent trading spreads.

Considerations

The expense ratio is notably higher than similar market-cap index funds, costing 0.21 percent annually against the market's cheaper alternatives.
It is highly concentrated in the technology sector, as evidenced by its top ten holdings being led by tech giants like Nvidia and Apple.
Information regarding its exact underlying index, sector weights and index methodology is not available, which limits full transparency regarding its portfolio construction.

QQQM

Pros

Investors benefit from a low operating cost, as the fund maintains a very efficient expense ratio of just 0.15 percent annually.
It is an exceptionally large fund with assets totalling $105.7 billion, ensuring that trading volumes remain high with very tight bid-ask spreads.
The fund has rapidly grown to a massive size since its 2020 inception, establishing a strong and trusted brand reputation quickly.

Considerations

The fund has a much shorter history than ONEQ, launching in late 2020, which means investors have less historical data for performance evaluation.
It has a lower dividend yield of 0.43 percent compared to the broader market, which might not satisfy those seeking regular income.
The specific index methodology is not available, which obscures details on how the fund's underlying holdings are selected or how they are weighted.

About ONEQ and QQQM

ONEQ (ONEQ)

The Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF offers investors a way to access the technology and growth-heavy landscape of the US stock market. Designed as a large growth fund, it seeks to track the performance of the Nasdaq Composite Index, which includes a vast array of companies across various sectors, though it is often associated with tech innovation. With an inception date of September 25, 2003, this ETF holds approximately 1,037 securities, providing broad exposure within this benchmark. The fund features an expense ratio of 0.21% and holds net assets of USD 10.80 billion. While it currently has a dividend yield of 0.48%, it's worth noting that market values can rise and fall. As with any investment, returns are not guaranteed, and potential investors should consider their own financial situation and risk tolerance before making decisions.

QQQM (QQQM)

The Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) aims to track the performance of the Nasdaq 100 Index, offering investors exposure to a concentrated basket of large-cap growth companies. As a cost-effective version of the well-known Nasdaq exposure, it typically features lower fees than its larger sibling, making it an attractive option for buy-and-hold strategies. The fund holds approximately 106 companies, heavily weighted towards the technology sector, but also including consumer services, health care, and industrials. With net assets exceeding $105 billion, it provides deep liquidity. While historically associated with strong growth during bullish market periods, investors should remember that the underlying companies are subject to market volatility. Values can rise and fall, and returns are not guaranteed. It suits those seeking broad exposure to major US tech and growth innovators, rather than personalised financial advice.

Buy ONEQ or QQQM in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

ONEQ vs QQQM

Fund Snapshot