QQQM vs XLC: 16% overlap
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund share 15.6% 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 5 months apart — QQQM as of 2026-02-28, 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 1.8. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
QQQM and XLC hold 10 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in QQQM | in XLC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| META | 3.7% | 18.5% | 14.8% |
| GOOGL | 3.5% | 10.1% | 6.5% |
| GOOG | 3.3% | 8.1% | 4.8% |
| NFLX | 2.2% | 4.3% | 2.1% |
| TMUS | 1.3% | 4.5% | 3.2% |
| CMCSA | 0.6% | 4.2% | 3.6% |
| WBD | 0.4% | 4.4% | 4.0% |
| EA | 0.3% | 4.7% | 4.4% |
| TTWO | 0.2% | 4.3% | 4.1% |
| CHTR | 0.2% | 2.0% | 1.8% |
Where QQQM and XLC 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 | QQQM | XLC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication Services | 15.6% | 99.8% | −84.2pp |
| Information Technology | 48.9% | 0.0% | +48.9pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 11.9% | 0.0% | +11.9pp |
| Consumer Staples | 8.5% | 0.0% | +8.5pp |
| Health Care | 5.2% | 0.0% | +5.2pp |
| Industrials | 3.0% | 0.0% | +3.0pp |
| Unclassified | 2.7% | 0.0% | +2.7pp |
| Utilities | 1.6% | 0.0% | +1.6pp |
Δ is QQQM minus XLC, 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
84.1% of QQQM by weight, held in no part of XLC.
34.9% of XLC by weight, held in no part of QQQM.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| QQQM | XLC | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 46.7% | 68.6% |
| Positions held | 103 | 25 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $15 | $8 |
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 QQQM and XLC overlap?
QQQM and XLC overlap 15.6% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 10 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (QQQM as of 2026-02-28, XLC as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between QQQM and XLC calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If QQQM holds a stock at 6% and XLC 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 QQQM and XLC?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 15.6% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does QQQM own that XLC doesn't?
QQQM holds 103 positions and XLC holds 25; 92 of QQQM's positions don't appear in XLC at all, and they are 84.1% of QQQM by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares QQQM and XLC. 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 QQQM vs XLC
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, QQQM as of 2026-02-28, XLC as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.