Index funds are supposed to keep investing simple. Buy the market, pay a tiny fee, accept the market’s return. But one of the most popular funds in the market has spent the past decade proving that a simple twist on the formula (tracking the Nasdaq’s biggest companies instead of the whole market) can produce dramatically better results.
The fund is the Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ +0.31%). Over the 10 years ended March 31, 2026, QQQ returned 18.97% annualized, versus 14.15% for the S&P 500 , according to Invesco.
A gap of nearly 5 percentage points a year may not sound like much. Compounded over a decade, it is enormous: A $10,000 investment growing at those rates becomes about $57,000 in QQQ, versus about $38,000 in an S&P 500 index fund.
Not only has the fund beaten the index over the full decade, but it has also done so in seven of the past 10 individual years, according to Invesco. In other words, the outperformance hasn’t hinged on one lucky stretch.
Image source: Getty Images.
What’s inside the fund
QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100 index, which holds the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq. In practice, that mandate means the fund is loaded with the technology giants that led the market over the past decade — the same companies now leading the AI (artificial intelligence) infrastructure boom.
Today’s Change
(0.31%) $2.23
Current Price
$725.51
Key Data Points
AUM
$481B
Dividend Yield
0.42%
Expense Ratio
0.18%
Top Holdings
NVDA
8.02%
AAPL
7.27%
MU
4.79%
As of early July, the fund’s biggest holdings were Nvidia at about 7.9% of the portfolio, Apple at about 7.4%, Micron at about 4.7%, Microsoft at about 4.6%, and Amazon at about 4.2%, with Alphabet, Tesla, and Broadcom close behind. The top 10 positions account for 45% of the fund.
That concentration explains the outperformance. When the market’s biggest technology companies lead, as they have for most of the past decade, QQQ captures more of the move than a broader index does.
And the pattern is holding again this year. The fund is up about 18% year to date as of this writing — well ahead of the S&P 500’s roughly 10% gain, as AI spending drives earnings growth across chips, cloud computing, and memory.
Investors have noticed. QQQ holds about $490 billion in assets, making it one of the largest exchange-traded funds in the market. And the cost of owning it is modest. The fund’s expense ratio is 0.18%.
Can it keep winning?
But I should make something clear. A decade of outperformance is evidence of a portfolio that sat where the growth was. It’s not a guarantee that the next decade will look the same.
Today, the companies driving the AI infrastructure boom are heavily represented at the top of QQQ. Micron’s rise to a top-three position is a good example of how the index adapts on its own. As the AI boom reshaped the memory business, Micron’s weight in the fund grew along with its market value. No fund manager required.
Of course, the risk runs in the same direction — and valuation is part of it. After a decade of big gains, many of the fund’s top holdings trade at premium valuation multiples, so future returns could lean more on earnings growth than on further multiple expansion. Concentration that helps on the way up hurts on the way down. The fund’s top five holdings alone account for nearly 30% of assets, so a rough stretch for big tech (an AI spending pause, say, or a broad valuation reset) would likely hit QQQ harder than it would hit the S&P 500.
Investors should also note what the fund leaves out. It holds no financial companies and has far less exposure to defensive sectors that can cushion a broad index in a downturn. Put another way, the fund’s decade of outperformance was earned by sitting through declines that ran deeper than the broader market’s — and that trade-off isn’t going away.
Ultimately, I think QQQ is a strong option for investors who want the market’s growth engine in a single fund and can stomach the swings that come with it. But it probably shouldn’t be anyone’s only holding. For the growth-oriented slice of a portfolio, however, it was definitely a good choice in the rearview mirror — and might make sense going forward, too.
