S&P 500 vs Nasdaq 100 for the Long Run: Why the “Hotter” Fund Isn’t Always the One That Leaves You Richer
On March 27, 2000, the hottest fund in America closed at $117.75 a share.
It was the Invesco QQQ, the fund that tracks the Nasdaq 100. It had launched just a year earlier. In 1999 alone, the index it follows had more than doubled. Everyone wanted in.
Two and a half years later, the same share was worth $20.06. A $10,000 investment had shrunk to about $1,700.
Here is the part almost nobody tells you. By September 2026, more than 26 years later, a person who bought the S&P 500 on that same March day had still ended up with more money than the person who bought the "hot" fund.
The short answer Over the long run, the Nasdaq 100 has not reliably left investors richer than the S&P 500. From January 2000 to December 2025, both turned $10,000 into about $75,300, a near-perfect tie. Since 2008, the Nasdaq 100 has won by a wide margin (about 16% a year versus 11%). But its crashes are deeper, real investors capture less of its return, and retirees taking money out can be hurt badly. For most people over 40, the S&P 500 makes the better core. The Nasdaq 100, if you want it at all, works best as a small side helping. |
In this article
The day the hottest fund in America peaked
Let's go back to that March.
The Nasdaq 100 had just finished the best year in its history. In 1999 it rose about 102%. Internet companies with no profits were worth more than century-old industrial giants. If you weren't in tech, your friends thought you were a fool.
Then the music stopped.
The QQQ closed at its peak of $117.75 on March 27, 2000. It then fell in stages for two and a half years. On October 9, 2002, it closed at $20.06. That is a drop of 83%.
Now think about what that means in real life. You put in $10,000. You open your statement and see $1,700.
How long did it take to get back to even, with every dividend reinvested? Almost 15 years. The money didn't break even until February 2015. The share price itself didn't get back above $117.75 until September 2016.
Some of the biggest names never recovered for decades. Cisco closed at $80.06 on the day QQQ peaked. It didn't close above that price again until December 2025. Intel's 2000 high wasn't beaten until April 2026.
The twist that should change how you think about "hot" funds
Here is the number that matters most.
According to a Motley Fool analysis published in September 2026, $10,000 put into QQQ at that March 2000 peak eventually grew to about $72,000. That's roughly 7.8% a year. Not bad, after all that pain.
But the same $10,000 put into the S&P 500 (through the SPY fund) on the very same day grew to about 8 times the original stake.
Read that again. The "hotter" fund went through one of the greatest technology booms in human history: smartphones, cloud computing, social media, artificial intelligence. And the person who bought it at the top still finished behind the boring fund.
That is the whole point of this article. Returns on a chart are one thing. What actually ends up in your account is another.
What the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 actually are
Before we compare them, it helps to know what you're buying. They sound similar. They are not.
The S&P 500 holds about 500 of the largest US companies, picked by a committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. It covers every part of the economy: technology, banks, healthcare, factories, energy, shops and more.
The Nasdaq 100 holds the 100 largest companies listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange, leaving out financial companies. It's chosen mostly by size ranking. In practice, it's a concentrated bet on big technology and consumer-internet companies.
S&P 500 | Nasdaq 100 | |
Number of companies | About 500 | About 100 |
Who picks them | A committee, using rules | Mostly a size ranking |
Must be profitable to join? | Yes | No |
Banks and insurers | Yes (about 11%) | None |
Technology weight (end of 2025) | About 41% | About 63% |
Top 10 companies' share | About 40% | About 49% |
Annual volatility, 2008–2025 | 20.1% | 22.9% |
Cheapest big US fund | VOO, 0.03% a year | QQQM, 0.15% a year |
Dividend yield (recent) | Roughly 1.2–1.5% | Roughly 0.6% |
The profitability rule almost nobody mentions
This one difference tells you a lot about each index's personality.
To join the S&P 500, a company must have positive GAAP earnings (the official accounting profit, not a company's own "adjusted" number). Its profits over the last four quarters added together must be positive, and its most recent quarter must be profitable too.
The Nasdaq 100 has no such test.
You saw this play out in 2026. SpaceX listed on the Nasdaq on June 12, 2026. Under a new "fast entry" rule, it joined the Nasdaq 100 on July 7, just 15 trading days later. SpaceX reported a net loss of $4.94 billion for 2025.
S&P Dow Jones Indices refused to bend its rules. SpaceX must wait at least 12 months and show real profits before it can even be considered for the S&P 500.
Neither approach is "right". But one index is built to let in exciting companies quickly. The other is built to keep out companies that haven't proven they can make money. That is a big part of why one is hotter and the other is steadier.
They overlap more than you think
Many people buy both and believe they are spreading their risk. They are mostly doubling up.
Nasdaq's own data shows the total value of Nasdaq 100 companies has grown to about 52% of the value of the whole S&P 500. Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom and Meta sit at the top of both.
So if you own an S&P 500 fund, you already own every big name in the Nasdaq 100. Adding a Nasdaq fund doesn't add new companies. It adds more weight to the same giants. (If you're unsure how many funds you really need, read How Many Index Funds Should You Own? Probably Fewer Than You Think.)
The scoreboard: which one really won over the long run?
Here's the problem with most "S&P 500 vs Nasdaq 100" articles. They pick one start date and declare a winner.
Change the start date and you change the winner.
I took the yearly total returns (dividends reinvested) for the Nasdaq 100, using the QQQ fund, and for the S&P 500 index, and ran $10,000 through each from different starting points to the end of 2025.
You started in January… | Nasdaq 100: $10,000 became | Per year | S&P 500: $10,000 became | Per year |
2000 | $75,320 | 8.1% | $75,285 | 8.1% |
2008 | $134,326 | 15.5% | $65,996 | 11.1% |
2010 | $150,323 | 18.5% | $82,837 | 14.1% |
2016 | $59,183 | 19.5% | $39,833 | 14.8% |
Nasdaq's own official figures tell the same story for the recent era. From the end of 2007 to the end of 2025, the Nasdaq 100 returned 16.0% a year against 11.0% for the S&P 500. It beat the S&P 500 in 14 of those 18 calendar years.
That is a genuinely impressive record. If you started in 2008 or later, the Nasdaq 100 crushed it.
But start in 2000 and you get a dead heat after 26 years.
One fair note: the QQQ numbers include the fund's own fee, while the S&P 500 numbers are the raw index. Add the fee back and the Nasdaq 100 edges ahead by about 0.2 points a year. Still, for 26 years, that is close to a tie.
The number hiding inside that tie
Look closely at that chart.
Starting in January 2000, the Nasdaq 100 investor was behind the S&P 500 investor at the end of 25 of the 26 years. Only in the final year did the Nasdaq 100 finally pull level.
At the end of 2002, the Nasdaq 100 investor had $2,668 left. The S&P 500 investor had $6,239.
Both ended up in the same place. But one of them spent a quarter of a century looking at a worse number. Ask yourself honestly: would you have held on?
Why "hotter" doesn't automatically mean "richer"
This is the part most people never get taught. It's simple maths, and it explains almost everything.
Losses hurt more than gains help
When you lose money, you need a bigger gain just to get back to where you started.
Lose 20%, and you need a 25% gain to break even.
Lose 50%, and you need a 100% gain.
Lose 83%, as the QQQ did, and you need a 488% gain.
That's why deep crashes are so destructive. (I explain this in full in How Long Does It Take to Recover From a 50% Stock Market Loss?)
The "average return" trap
Here is a simple example. Say a fund rises 50% one year and falls 40% the next.
The "average" return looks like +5% a year. But $10,000 becomes $15,000, then $9,000. You've actually lost 10%.
Now look at the real numbers from 2000 to 2025:
2000–2025 | Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) | S&P 500 |
Average yearly return | 12.2% | 9.7% |
How much yearly returns swung (standard deviation) | 28.3% | 17.6% |
What your money actually grew at | 8.1% a year | 8.1% a year |
The Nasdaq 100 had the better "average year" by 2.5 points. Yet the money grew at the same speed.
The bigger swings ate the difference. That's the hidden cost of "hot". The marketing shows you the average. Your account lives on the compound number.
The gap that eats real investors
So far, we've talked about funds. But funds don't invest. People do.
And people tend to buy after a fund has gone up, then sell after it has gone down.
Every year, the research firm Morningstar measures this in a study called "Mind the Gap". It compares what funds earned with what the average dollar invested in them actually earned, once you count when people bought and sold.
The 2026 edition looked at nearly 23,000 US mutual funds and ETFs over the 10 years to December 31, 2025:
The funds themselves returned 9.9% a year.
The average investor dollar earned only 8.7% a year.
That 1.2-point gap meant investors missed out on about 12% of their funds' total return.
Here's the part that matters for this article. The gap was much bigger in volatile funds. In the least volatile funds, investors lost about 0.4 points a year to bad timing. In the most volatile funds, they lost about 2.1 points a year.
There was good news too. Investors in plain US stock index funds came within about 0.1 points a year of their funds' returns. Boring, broad and automatic works.
(If you've ever wondered why you didn't get the returns the brochures promised, read The Hidden Gap That Left Ordinary Investors 8.5% Behind the Market in a Single Year.)
What happens when a fund gets "hot": a real example
The clearest real-world example isn't the Nasdaq 100 itself. It's a fund that took the "hot technology" idea even further.
The ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) gained 152.5% in 2020. Money poured in: about $14.1 billion of new investment in 2020 and 2021, after the big gains had already happened.
Then, in 2022, the fund fell 67%.
Here's the painful part. Over the 10 years to the end of 2025, ARKK's own total return was positive. But Morningstar estimates it destroyed about $5.0 billion of its shareholders' wealth over that decade, because most of the money arrived near the top.
The fund made money. Its investors, as a group, lost it.
To be fair, the Nasdaq 100 is far broader and steadier than ARKK. In an earlier Morningstar study, QQQ even ranked among the funds that created the most wealth for shareholders over a decade. But the lesson is the same: the hotter a fund runs, the easier it is to buy high and sell low.
(For why this happens to smart, hard-working people, see Why Smart, Hard-Working People Sell at the Very Bottom.)
The retirement test: what happens when you're taking money out
This is where the difference between the two becomes life-changing, especially if you're over 50.
Let's run a simple test using the real yearly returns:
You retire with $500,000 in January 2000.
You take out $20,000 at the start of every year to live on (4% of your starting balance).
You leave the rest invested, either in the Nasdaq 100 or in the S&P 500.
Here's what happened.
End of year | Nasdaq 100 balance | S&P 500 balance |
2002 | $107,198 | $270,172 |
2008 | $35,095 | $212,835 |
2010 | $3,827 | $257,573 |
2011 | $0 (ran out) | $242,585 |
2025 | $0 | $798,472 |
The Nasdaq 100 retiree ran out of money in 2011.
The S&P 500 retiree took out $520,000 over 26 years, and still had about $798,000 left at the end of 2025.
Same withdrawals. Same years. Completely different life.
Now the honest flip side
I don't want to stack the deck. So let's run the same plan starting in January 2008, right before the financial crisis.
By the end of 2025, the Nasdaq 100 retiree would have about $4.06 million. The S&P 500 retiree would have about $1.74 million. The Nasdaq 100 won by a mile.
So which is "right"? Both. That's the lesson.
When you're withdrawing money, the order of good and bad years matters enormously. Experts call this "sequence of returns risk". A big crash early in retirement does damage that later gains can't undo, because you've been selling shares at low prices to pay your bills.
The deeper an index can fall, the bigger this risk. And you don't get to choose the year you retire.
(If you're planning withdrawals, read Will You Run Out of Money Before You Run Out of Life? The Simple "4% Rule".)
The saver's surprise: when a crash is your friend
Now for a result that surprises most people.
What if you weren't retired? What if you were in your 30s or 40s, adding money every year?
Let's say you invested $6,000 at the start of every year (about $500 a month) from 2000 to 2025. That's $156,000 in total.
Nasdaq 100 | S&P 500 | |
Value at end of 2002 (after $18,000 in) | $7,862 | $12,536 |
Value at end of 2008 (after $54,000 in) | $38,339 | $43,950 |
Value at end of 2025 (after $156,000 in) | about $1.60 million | about $890,000 |
The Nasdaq 100 saver ended with almost twice as much.
Why? Because they kept buying shares cheaply during the long crash, and those cheap shares later soared.
But look at the price of that win. After three years, they had put in $18,000 and had $7,862 to show for it. After nine years, they were still below what they'd put in.
You would have needed to keep writing that cheque every year, through the dot-com crash and the 2008 crisis, while your account said you were losing. Morningstar's research says most people don't do that. They stop, or they sell.
So the Nasdaq 100's best result belongs to the investor with iron nerves and a steady paycheck. Be honest with yourself about whether that's you.
(See what steady monthly investing in the S&P 500 can do in What $500 a Month in an S&P 500 Index Fund Becomes After 10, 20 and 30 Years.)
Is this time different?
It's a fair question. Today's tech giants are not the dot-com companies of 2000.
What really is different. Today's biggest Nasdaq companies make huge profits. Nasdaq reports that Nasdaq 100 companies grew their revenue 18.6% year on year in the first quarter of 2026, versus 11.8% for the S&P 500. In 2000, many of the hottest stocks had little or no profit at all.
What isn't different. Concentration. The ten largest companies make up about half of the Nasdaq 100. Even the S&P 500's top ten reached a record of about 40.7% at the end of 2025. In July 2023, the Nasdaq 100 grew so top-heavy that Nasdaq had to run a special rebalance. The biggest companies had passed the index's 48% limit on combined weight, and their share was cut back to 40%.
And the swings haven't gone away. In 2022, the Nasdaq 100 fell about 33% while the S&P 500 lost about 18%. In 2026, the Nasdaq 100 led strongly into the summer, up about 17% by the end of August against 13% for the S&P 500. Then tech stocks slid in October. By the close on November 6, 2026, the S&P 500 (SPY) was up about 8.7% for the year and the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) about 7.2%.
"Hot" can cool down in weeks. Sometimes it takes 15 years to warm up again.
(Want the bigger picture? Read The Mag 7 Lost the Race to the "Boring" 493 in 2026 and What If the S&P 500 Does What Japan Did?)
Costs, taxes and the non-US investor checklist
Small costs add up over decades. Here's what the most popular funds charge each year:
Fund | Tracks | Yearly fee | Where it's based |
VOO (Vanguard) | S&P 500 | 0.03% | US |
CSPX (iShares) | S&P 500 | 0.07% | Ireland |
QQQM (Invesco) | Nasdaq 100 | 0.15% | US |
QQQ (Invesco) | Nasdaq 100 | 0.18% (cut from 0.20% in Dec 2025) | US |
CNDX (iShares) | Nasdaq 100 | 0.30% | Ireland |
On $100,000 growing at 8% a year for 20 years, a 0.03% fee leaves you about $463,500. A 0.30% fee leaves about $440,900. That's roughly $22,600 gone, just to fees.
The Nasdaq 100 costs more almost everywhere. So it has to earn more just to keep up.
If you live outside the United States Two hidden costs matter as much as the fee. First, US-based funds like VOO and QQQ can have 30% taken from dividends for many foreign investors, while Irish-based funds generally lose 15% inside the fund. Read The 30% Dividend Tax You Didn't Know You Pay on US Stocks. Second, US-based funds can expose your family to US estate tax. Read If You Live Outside America and Own VOO, Your Family Could Lose Up to 40%. For the S&P 500 side, see CSPX vs VOO. |
So which one should you own? A simple decision flowchart
There's no single right answer for everyone. But there is a right answer for you. Work through these questions honestly.
Question No. 1: Will you need this money within 10 years, or are you already withdrawing?
If yes, the S&P 500 is the steadier core. The retirement test above shows why.
Question No. 2: Have you ever sold during a crash?
If yes, a more volatile fund is likely to cost you more through the behaviour gap than it earns you. Stick with the broader index.
Question No. 3: Could you watch your balance fall 80%, and keep adding money for three years without stopping?
If no, the Nasdaq 100 should not be your main holding. If yes, you could consider it as a small extra on top of a broad core.
Question No. 4: Do you already own an S&P 500 fund?
Then remember: you already own every big Nasdaq 100 giant. Adding more is a bet on the same companies, not new diversification.
Three sensible ways to set it up
Set-up | What it looks like | Who it suits |
Simple core | 100% in a broad S&P 500 (or whole-world) index fund | Most people, especially over 50 or near retirement |
Core plus a small tilt | 80–90% S&P 500, 10–20% Nasdaq 100 | Long horizon, steady income, proven calm in crashes |
All-in on the Nasdaq 100 | 100% in one tech-heavy index | Not suitable for retirement money for most people |
These are general examples to help you think, not personal advice. Your situation is unique.
What to do tonight
You don't need to make a big move. You need a clear one.
Look at what you own. Add up how much of your total portfolio sits in the 10 biggest tech companies, across all your funds.
Write your "crash rule" down. One sentence, for example: "When the market falls 30%, I keep my monthly investment going and change nothing." Put it where you'll see it.
Check your fees. If you pay 1% or more, read The "Tiny" 1% Fee That Can Quietly Steal a Quarter of Your Retirement.
If you own both funds, check the overlap. You may be far less diversified than you think.
Automate it. A fixed monthly amount, bought on the same day, removes the temptation to time "hot" and "cold".
If you're retired or close, protect the next 5 years. Keep the money you'll need soon out of the most volatile assets.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Nasdaq 100 better than the S&P 500 in the long run?
Not reliably. Since 2008 the Nasdaq 100 has clearly won, returning about 16% a year versus 11%. But from 2000 to 2025, $10,000 in each ended at roughly the same $75,300. The answer depends heavily on your start date, and the Nasdaq 100's crashes have been much deeper.
Should I invest in both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100?
You can, but understand what you're doing. Every big Nasdaq 100 company is already in the S&P 500. Adding a Nasdaq fund mainly increases your weight in the same tech giants. If you do it, many investors keep the Nasdaq part small, such as 10–20%, around a broad core.
Is QQQ riskier than VOO?
Yes. QQQ holds about 100 companies, with roughly 63% in technology and no banks. VOO holds about 500 across every sector. QQQ fell about 83% from 2000 to 2002 and about 33% in 2022, against about 49% and 18% for the S&P 500. It also charges more: 0.18% versus 0.03%.
What is the average annual return of the Nasdaq 100?
It depends on the period. From the end of 2007 to the end of 2025, Nasdaq reports 16.0% a year with dividends. From January 2000 to December 2025, the QQQ fund grew at about 8.1% a year. That's the same as the S&P 500 over that stretch, because of the dot-com crash.
Is the Nasdaq 100 good for retirement?
As a main holding, it carries extra risk for retirees. In our test, a retiree taking $20,000 a year from $500,000 starting in 2000 ran out of money by 2011 in the Nasdaq 100, but had about $798,000 left in the S&P 500 by 2025. Starting in 2008, though, the Nasdaq 100 won.
Why doesn't the Nasdaq 100 include banks?
By design, the Nasdaq 100 excludes financial companies such as banks and insurers. That's one reason it leans so heavily toward technology. The S&P 500 includes financials, which made up about 11% of it at the end of 2025, giving it a broader spread across the economy.
Is it too late to buy the Nasdaq 100?
Nobody can know. Today's tech giants are far more profitable than the dot-com stars of 2000, but the index is also very concentrated. Rather than guessing, decide how much volatility you can truly live with, keep any Nasdaq 100 position at a size you could hold through an 80% fall, and invest gradually.
What's the best way to own the Nasdaq 100 or S&P 500 from outside the US?
Many non-US investors choose Irish-based UCITS funds, such as CSPX for the S&P 500 or CNDX for the Nasdaq 100. These usually lose less to US dividend tax and avoid direct US estate-tax exposure. Check what your broker offers and the rules in your own country.
The bottom line
The Nasdaq 100 is a remarkable index. Since 2008 it has made a lot of people a lot of money.
But "hotter" is not the same as "richer". Over 26 years it finished level with the S&P 500. Along the way it fell 83%, made investors wait 15 years, ran a retiree out of money, and tempted thousands of people to buy high and sell low.
The S&P 500 will never be the most exciting thing at a dinner party. It doesn't need to be. It owns the same giants and also owns the rest of the economy, and it asks far less of your nerves.
Wealth isn't built by the fund with the best year. It's built by the fund you can actually hold through the worst one.
Get your free report
If you've ever lost money chasing what was "hot", it probably wasn't all your fault. My free 38-page report, "Why You Lost Money in the Stock Market (And Why It Wasn't Your Fault)", shows you:
The hidden forces that push ordinary investors to buy high and sell low
Why the "hot" funds you see advertised are usually the riskiest time to buy
The simple rules that help you stay calm and keep compounding through crashes
It's free. Download it now and start rebuilding with a plan you can stick to.
About the author
Stephen Loke has been a student of the market for more than 15 years. He is also an agritourism entrepreneur whose farm has been featured in Bloomberg News and Asahi Shimbun.
This article is general education, not personal financial advice. I'm not a licensed financial adviser. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The scenarios above use historical yearly returns and ignore taxes and trading costs. Please consider your own situation, or speak to a licensed professional, before making investment decisions.
Sources
Nasdaq Global Indexes, "When Performance Matters: Nasdaq-100 vs. S&P 500, Q4 2025" (data to Dec 31, 2025): https://www.nasdaq.com/docs/ndx-when-performance-matters-q4-2025
The Motley Fool (via Mitrade), "History Says Buying the Nasdaq-100 at the Dot-Com Peak Still (Eventually) Turned $10,000 Into About $72,000", Sept 2026: https://www.mitrade.com/insights/news/live-news/article-8-2100275-20260920
Phys.org / Associated Press, "After 15 years, Nasdaq recoups losses of dot-com crash", April 2015: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-years-nasdaq-recoups-losses-dot-com.html
Morningstar, "Mind the Gap 2026" (10 years ended Dec 31, 2025): https://www.morningstar.com/business/insights/research/mind-the-gap
Advisor Perspectives, "What Advisors Can Learn From the Investor Return Gap", Aug 2026: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2026/08/21/what-advisors-can-learn-from-the-investor-return-gap
WealthManagement.com, "Morningstar: Investors Miss Out on 12% of Fund Returns Over Decade", 2026: https://www.wealthmanagement.com/investing-strategies/investors-miss-out-on-12-of-fund-returns-over-decade
Morningstar, "These 15 Funds Cost Investors Billions Over the Past Decade" (10 years ended 2025): https://www.morningstar.com/funds/these-15-funds-cost-investors-billions-over-past-decade
WealthManagement.com, "The Top 15 Wealth-Destroying Funds of the Last Decade", 2024: https://www.wealthmanagement.com/etfs/the-top-15-wealth-destroying-funds-of-the-last-decade
ChartRow, Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) total returns by year, to Nov 6, 2026: https://chartrow.com/nasdaq-100/returns
ChartRow, S&P 500 (SPY) total returns by year, to Nov 6, 2026: https://chartrow.com/sp500/returns
Slickcharts, S&P 500 total returns by year: https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns/details
Slickcharts, Nasdaq 100 returns by year: https://www.slickcharts.com/nasdaq100/returns
Nasdaq, Nasdaq-100 one-pager: https://www.nasdaq.com/docs/global-indexes/nasdaq-100/NDX_one-pager
Nasdaq, "Nasdaq-100 Outperforms the S&P 500" (revenue growth to Q1 2026): https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/global-indexes/nasdaq-100-outperforms-the-sp-500
Nasdaq, "August 2026 Review and Outlook": https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/august-2026-review-and-outlook
ChartRow, Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 concentration: https://chartrow.com/nasdaq-100/concentration and https://chartrow.com/sp500/concentration
Reuters (via The Star), "SpaceX set to join Nasdaq 100, paving way for wave of passive buying", June 2026: https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2026/06/27/spacex-set-to-join-nasdaq-100-paving-way-for-wave-of-passive-buying
The Motley Fool, "SpaceX Is Joining the Nasdaq-100", July 2026: https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/07/07/spacex-is-joining-the-nasdaq-100-thisnext-week-wha/
Invesco, S&P 500 vs Nasdaq-100 IPO treatment (S&P 500 profitability screen), 2026: https://www.invesco.com/apac/en/institutional/insights/etf/major-us-equity-indexes-ipo-treatments.html
Reuters (via Metrobank Wealth Insights), "What is Nasdaq's special rebalancing and its impact?", July 2023: https://wealthinsights.metrobank.com.ph/reuters/rpt-explainer-what-is-nasdaqs-special-rebalancing-and-its-impact
Invesco, QQQ quarterly outlook (conversion and 0.18% fee), Q4 2025: https://invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/etf-insights/qqq-quarterly-outlook.html
ETF.com, "Investors Pull $3.9B From QQQ Since Conversion" (QQQM 0.15%), Feb 2026: https://www.etf.com/sections/features/investors-pull-39b-qqq-conversion
iShares, iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSPX) fact page, 2026: https://www.ishares.com/uk/professionals/en/products/253743/CSPX
justETF data via INDmoney, Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF fees, 2026: https://www.indmoney.com/blog/nasdaq-100-ucits-etfs-for-your-portfolio
Author's calculations from the yearly total returns above (QQQ for the Nasdaq 100, S&P 500 Total Return index), 2000–2025.
Comments