PRWCX vs QQQ: 26% overlap
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation and Invesco QQQ Trust share 25.7% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published about 4 months apart — PRWCX as of 2026-03-31, the rest through 2026-07-23. Each fund is compared using its most recent file, so any trading in between shows up as a difference.
You would hold two tickers and get the diversification of 1.7. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
PRWCX and QQQ hold 16 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in PRWCX | in QQQ | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFT | 4.2% | 4.7% | 0.4% |
| AMZN | 4.8% | 4.1% | 0.7% |
| AAPL | 3.6% | 7.8% | 4.2% |
| NVDA | 3.0% | 8.3% | 5.3% |
| META | 3.7% | 3.0% | 0.7% |
| GOOGL | 2.3% | 3.0% | 0.8% |
| AVGO | 1.8% | 3.1% | 1.3% |
| AMD | 1.4% | 4.0% | 2.6% |
| NFLX | 0.7% | 1.3% | 0.6% |
| SBUX | 1.1% | 0.5% | 0.5% |
Where PRWCX and QQQ differ
Sector weights as a share of each fund, ordered by the size of the gap rather than the size of the sector — two funds that overlap heavily still usually diverge somewhere.
| Sector | PRWCX | QQQ | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 17.8% | 59.1% | −41.3pp |
| Unclassified | 20.3% | 1.0% | +19.2pp |
| Treasuries | 18.2% | 0.0% | +18.2pp |
| Health Care | 12.2% | 3.6% | +8.6pp |
| Communication Services | 6.7% | 13.1% | −6.4pp |
| Utilities | 7.1% | 1.2% | +5.9pp |
| Consumer Staples | 0.6% | 6.4% | −5.8pp |
| Cash & Other | 5.0% | 0.0% | +5.0pp |
Δ is PRWCX minus QQQ, in percentage points. Sector data is not published by every issuer, so “Unclassified” is a real category rather than a gap in the table.
What each fund holds alone
65.3% of PRWCX by weight, held in no part of QQQ.
53.0% of QQQ by weight, held in no part of PRWCX.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| PRWCX | QQQ | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 46.0% | 45.9% |
| Positions held | 151 | 104 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $72 | $20 |
Cost is the expense ratio applied to $10,000; it excludes any brokerage commission, bid-ask spread or tax consequence. Figures are facts about the funds, not a suggestion about which to hold.
Frequently asked
How much do PRWCX and QQQ overlap?
PRWCX and QQQ overlap 25.7% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 16 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (PRWCX as of 2026-03-31, QQQ as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between PRWCX and QQQ calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If PRWCX holds a stock at 6% and QQQ holds the same stock at 4%, 4% counts as shared. The result is bounded between 0% and 100%, and it is computed after looking through any fund-of-funds to the underlying holdings.
Is it redundant to hold both PRWCX and QQQ?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 25.7% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does PRWCX own that QQQ doesn't?
PRWCX holds 151 positions and QQQ holds 104; 134 of PRWCX's positions don't appear in QQQ at all, and they are 65.3% of PRWCX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares PRWCX and QQQ. Paste your whole portfolio — brokerage, 401(k), IRA — and see the overlap across every fund at once, plus what you actually own underneath them and your own Effective Funds number. Free, no account, nothing stored.
X-ray my portfolio — free →Watch PRWCX vs QQQ
We re-read both funds’ published holdings every weeknight. Leave an address and we'll tell you when what's inside actually changes.
Not sending yet — email alerts are built but switched off, and you'll be among the first when they turn on. No spam, one-click unsubscribe.
Related comparisons
Sources: issuer holdings files, PRWCX as of 2026-03-31, QQQ as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.