ETF comparison

CSPX vs EQQB

iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF
IE00B5BMR087iShares
Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF Acc
IE00BFZXGZ54Invesco
Figures as of October 1, 2026 (CSPX) · October 1, 2026 (EQQB)

The comparison in short

CSPX (iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF, IE00B5BMR087) tracks the S&P 500 index and EQQB (Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF Acc, IE00BFZXGZ54) the NASDAQ-100 index. CSPX has the lower total expense ratio (TER): 0.07% a year against 0.30% for EQQB, 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 EQQB, about 7.2 times the size. CSPX reports 505 holdings and EQQB 103. 8 of the holdings published by CSPX (top 10) and EQQB (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 CLASS A and AMAZON.COM INC. In 2025, CSPX returned +17.6% and EQQB +20.6%, a gap of 3 percentage points. Over 5 years, CSPX returned +13.3% a year and EQQB +16.0% a year. CSPX and EQQB both reinvest their income (accumulating share classes). CSPX and EQQB both hold the index securities directly (physical replication). Both are domiciled in Ireland. CSPX carries a risk indicator (SRRI) of 4 and EQQB of 5, on the 1–7 scale. This is a factual comparison from the fund houses' documents, not investment advice.

Side by side

FigureCSPXEQQB
ISINIE00B5BMR087IE00BFZXGZ54
Exchange tickersCSPX, SXR8, CSSPXEQQB, EQAC
Fund houseiSharesInvesco
Total expense ratio (TER)0.07%0.30%
Ongoing charges (KID)0.07%0.30%
Fund sizeUSD 159.1bnUSD 21.96bn
Launch dateMay 19, 2010September 24, 2018
ReplicationPhysicalPhysical
DomicileIrelandIreland
Distribution policyAccumulatingAccumulating
Share class currencyUSDUSD
Number of holdings505103
Risk indicator (SRRI)4 / 75 / 7
SFDR classificationArticle 6Article 6
BenchmarkS&P 500 IndexNASDAQ-100 Index (USD)

Performance

Calendar-year returns

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

Annualised returns

PeriodCSPXEQQBDifference
1 year+15.3%+23.3%−8.0
3 years+22.7%+27.6%−4.9
5 years+13.3%+16.0%−2.7
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 CSPX (top 10) and EQQB (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 CLASS A and AMAZON.COM INC.

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%

Top 10 holdings of EQQB

#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%
Compare every published holding of CSPX and EQQB in the overlap checker

Sectors and countries

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 sectors of EQQB

  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 countries of CSPX

  1. United States99.9%

Largest countries of EQQB

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

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between CSPX and EQQB?

CSPX (iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF, IE00B5BMR087) tracks the S&P 500 index and EQQB (Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF Acc, IE00BFZXGZ54) the NASDAQ-100 index. CSPX has the lower total expense ratio (TER): 0.07% a year against 0.30% for EQQB, 0.23 percentage points less, or about 23 a year on 10,000 invested. CSPX and EQQB both reinvest their income (accumulating share classes). CSPX and EQQB 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, CSPX or EQQB?

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

Which is bigger, CSPX or EQQB?

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

Do CSPX and EQQB hold the same companies?

8 of the holdings published by CSPX (top 10) and EQQB (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 CLASS A and AMAZON.COM INC.

How did CSPX and EQQB perform in 2025?

In 2025, CSPX returned +17.6% and EQQB +20.6%, a gap of 3 percentage points. Over 5 years, CSPX returned +13.3% a year and EQQB +16.0% a year. Over the past year, CSPX returned +15.3% and EQQB +23.3%. Past performance does not predict future returns.

Are CSPX and EQQB accumulating or distributing?

CSPX is accumulating: it reinvests its income in the fund. EQQB 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.