ETF comparison

EQQQ vs CSPX

Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF Dist
IE0032077012Invesco
iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF
IE00B5BMR087iShares
Figures as of October 1, 2026 (EQQQ) · October 1, 2026 (CSPX)

The comparison in short

EQQQ (Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF Dist, IE0032077012) tracks the NASDAQ-100 index and CSPX (iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF, IE00B5BMR087) the S&P 500 index. CSPX has the lower total expense ratio (TER): 0.07% a year against 0.30% for EQQQ, 0.23 percentage points less, or about 23 a year on 10,000 invested. CSPX is the larger fund, with USD 159.1bn in assets against USD 21.96bn for EQQQ, about 7.2 times the size. EQQQ reports 103 holdings and CSPX 505. 8 of the holdings published by EQQQ (top 10) and CSPX (top 10) appear in both lists; measured on those published positions only, the overlap is at least 36.4%. Shared holdings include Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon. In 2025, EQQQ returned +20.6% and CSPX +17.6%, a gap of 3 percentage points. Over 10 years, EQQQ returned +20.7% a year and CSPX +15.0% a year. CSPX reinvests its income (accumulating), while EQQQ pays it out (distributing). EQQQ and CSPX both hold the index securities directly (physical replication). Both are domiciled in Ireland. EQQQ carries a risk indicator (SRRI) of 6 and CSPX of 4, on the 1–7 scale. This is a factual comparison from the fund houses' documents, not investment advice.

Side by side

FigureEQQQCSPX
ISINIE0032077012IE00B5BMR087
Exchange tickersEQQQ, EQQUCSPX, SXR8, CSSPX
Fund houseInvescoiShares
Total expense ratio (TER)0.30%0.07%
Ongoing charges (KID)0.30%0.07%
Fund sizeUSD 21.96bnUSD 159.1bn
Launch dateDecember 2, 2002May 19, 2010
ReplicationPhysicalPhysical
DomicileIrelandIreland
Distribution policyDistributingAccumulating
Share class currencyUSDUSD
Number of holdings103505
Risk indicator (SRRI)6 / 74 / 7
SFDR classificationArticle 6Article 6
BenchmarkNASDAQ-100 Index (USD)S&P 500 Index

Performance

Calendar-year returns

YearEQQQCSPXDifference
2025+20.6%+17.6%+3.0
2024+25.4%+24.7%+0.7
2023+54.5%+25.9%+28.6
2022−32.6%−18.3%−14.3
2021+27.0%+28.4%−1.4
2020+48.3%+18.0%+30.3

Annualised returns

PeriodEQQQCSPXDifference
1 year+23.3%+15.3%+8.0
3 years+27.6%+22.7%+4.9
5 years+16.0%+13.3%+2.7
10 years+20.7%+15.0%+5.7
Returns as published by each fund house, in each share class's currency and net of the fund's charges. The difference is in percentage points. Past performance does not predict future returns.

Holdings

8 of the holdings published by EQQQ (top 10) and CSPX (top 10) appear in both lists; measured on those published positions only, the overlap is at least 36.4%. Shared holdings include Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon.

Top 10 holdings of EQQQ

#HoldingWeight
1
NvidiaIn both
8.52%
2
AppleIn both
7.42%
3
MicrosoftIn both
6.01%
4
Micron TechnologyIn both
4.76%
5
AmazonIn both
4.46%
6
Advanced Micro DevicesIn both
3.38%
7
AlphabetIn both
3.15%
8
Tesla
2.93%
9
AlphabetIn both
2.92%
10
BroadcomIn both
2.80%

Top 10 holdings of CSPX

#HoldingWeight
1
NVIDIAIn both
8.44%
2
APPLEIn both
7.28%
3
MICROSOFTIn both
5.75%
4
AMAZON.COM INCIn both
3.68%
5
ALPHABET CLASS AIn both
3.00%
6
BROADCOM INCIn both
2.47%
7
META PLATFORMS CLASS A
2.42%
8
ALPHABET CLASS CIn both
2.41%
9
MICRON TECHNOLOGYIn both
1.87%
10
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICESIn both
1.52%
Compare every published holding of EQQQ and CSPX in the overlap checker

Sectors and countries

Largest sectors of EQQQ

  1. Information technology58.6%
  2. Communication services13.7%
  3. Consumer discretionary11.1%
  4. Consumer staples6.2%
  5. Health care4.0%
  6. Industrials3.6%
+ 4 more

Largest sectors of CSPX

  1. Information Technology40.0%
  2. Financials11.3%
  3. Communication9.8%
  4. Health Care9.0%
  5. Consumer Discretionary8.6%
  6. Industrials8.1%
+ 4 more

Largest countries of EQQQ

  1. United States97.0%
  2. Netherlands1.1%
  3. Canada1.0%
  4. Brazil0.4%
  5. China0.2%
  6. United Kingdom0.2%

Largest countries of CSPX

  1. United States99.9%

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between EQQQ and CSPX?

EQQQ (Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF Dist, IE0032077012) tracks the NASDAQ-100 index and CSPX (iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF, IE00B5BMR087) the S&P 500 index. CSPX has the lower total expense ratio (TER): 0.07% a year against 0.30% for EQQQ, 0.23 percentage points less, or about 23 a year on 10,000 invested. CSPX reinvests its income (accumulating), while EQQQ pays it out (distributing). EQQQ and CSPX both hold the index securities directly (physical replication). Both are domiciled in Ireland. This is a factual comparison from the fund houses' documents, not investment advice.

Which is cheaper, EQQQ or CSPX?

CSPX has the lower total expense ratio (TER): 0.07% a year against 0.30% for EQQQ, 0.23 percentage points less, or about 23 a year on 10,000 invested. Their key information documents state ongoing charges of 0.30% for EQQQ and 0.07% for CSPX.

Which is bigger, EQQQ or CSPX?

CSPX is the larger fund, with USD 159.1bn in assets against USD 21.96bn for EQQQ, about 7.2 times the size.

Do EQQQ and CSPX hold the same companies?

8 of the holdings published by EQQQ (top 10) and CSPX (top 10) appear in both lists; measured on those published positions only, the overlap is at least 36.4%. Shared holdings include Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon.

How did EQQQ and CSPX perform in 2025?

In 2025, EQQQ returned +20.6% and CSPX +17.6%, a gap of 3 percentage points. Over 10 years, EQQQ returned +20.7% a year and CSPX +15.0% a year. Over the past year, EQQQ returned +23.3% and CSPX +15.3%. Past performance does not predict future returns.

Are EQQQ and CSPX accumulating or distributing?

EQQQ is distributing: it pays its income out to investors. CSPX is accumulating: it reinvests its income in the fund.

Go further

Other comparisons

Figures are read from the documents each fund house publishes (product page, factsheet, key information document, holdings file) and refreshed weekly. Names and tickers identify the products; FundFacts API is independent of every fund house and index provider. This comparison is factual information, not investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell either fund.