BWG vs QQQ
BWG vs QQQ
BrandywineGLOBAL Global Income Opportunities Fund Inc vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 103 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BWG | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.66% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $142M | $455.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 11.05% | 0.41% | |
| Holdings | 110 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | -0.22% | +18.20% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.61% | +27.63% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.44% | +25.54% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.97% | +15.12% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -58.8% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 28, 2012 | Mar 10, 1999 |
BWG vs QQQ Performance
BrandywineGLOBAL Global Income Opportunities Fund Inc (BWG) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BWG returned +2.61% while QQQ returned +27.63%. Year to date, BWG is down 0.22% versus a gain of 18.20% for QQQ.
Over three years, BWG compounded at +10.44% per year against +25.54% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +1.97% and +15.12% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.11% annualized vs -2.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 15.5% for BWG. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -58.8% for BWG and -83.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.57. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BWG charges 2.66% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $266 vs $18 annually, a gap of $248 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BWG currently yields 11.05% against 0.41% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
BWG and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 172 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BWG or QQQ?
BWG has an expense ratio of 2.66% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $248 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BWG or QQQ?
Over the past year BWG returned +2.61% vs +27.63% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), BWG annualized -2.29% vs +13.11% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BWG or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 15.5% for BWG. Worst drawdown: BWG -58.8% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both BWG and QQQ?
BWG and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BWG and QQQ?
BWG and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 172 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BWG or QQQ?
BWG yields 11.05% while QQQ yields 0.41%, so BWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.