ETF Comparison

KWEB vs QQQ: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

A head-to-head comparison of KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.

Data updated September 4, 2026

Best for

KWEBInvestors who want higher current income (8.05% vs 0.45% for QQQ).
QQQInvestors who want a growth tilt and can accept bigger swings for higher upside.

Jump to the side-by-side numbers

Visual comparison

Key metrics

Projected income on $10K

Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.

Total returns

KWEB has lagged QQQ over the trailing twelve months, posting a -27.76% total return against 26.73%. The lead holds up over 10 years too: QQQ has compounded at 20.69% a year, against -2.17% for KWEB. QQQ has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 20.4% against 33.8% for KWEB. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.

Total return and risk statistics by fund. Each row is one fund; each column is one period or statistic.
Symbol	YTD	1Y	3Y	5Y	10Y	Since Aug 2013	Volatility	Sharpe	Sortino	Max drawdown
KWEB	-26.89%	-27.76%	0.20%	-9.95%	-2.17%	1.87%	33.8%	-0.13	-0.18	-41.6%
QQQ	17.54%	26.73%	24.63%	14.18%	20.69%	19.64%	20.4%	0.86	1.24	-22.8%

Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of September 4, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; windows of one year or longer are annualized. “Since Aug 2013” measures every fund from August 1, 2013 — the youngest fund's first trading day — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the trailing 3 years. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the trailing 3 years) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.

Side-by-side snapshot

Side-by-side snapshot. Each row is one metric; each column is one fund.
Metric	KWEB	QQQ
Full name	KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF	Invesco QQQ Trust
Issuer	KraneShares	Invesco
Underlying index	CSI Overseas China Internet Index	Nasdaq-100 Index
Last Close	$26.05 as of September 4, 2026	$718.96 as of September 4, 2026
Distribution yield	8.05%	0.45%
Distribution Safety Score™	96	97
Safety-Adjusted Yield	7.73%	0.44%
Expense ratio	0.69%	0.18%
AUM	$5.04B	$484B
Distribution frequency	Annual	Quarterly
Objective	Seeks to provide investment results that correspond to the price and yield performance of the CSI Overseas China Internet Index.	Track the Nasdaq-100 Index, which includes 100 of the largest non-financial Nasdaq stocks.
Asset class	Equity	Equity
Inception date	07/31/2013	03/10/1999
Beta	0.78	1.26
Last dividend	$2.096	$0.8135
Ex-dividend date	12/22/2025	06/22/2026

Bottom lineChoose KWEB if you want higher current income (8.05% vs 0.45% for QQQ). Choose QQQ if you want a growth tilt and can accept bigger swings for higher upside.

Model this comparison:

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Income calculator

See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.

KraneShares

ETFs36

Total AUM$8.80B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

KraneShares is known for pioneering thematic and alternative ETF strategies that capture emerging trends and specialized market segments. The issuer's fund lineup spans income-focused strategies, including covered call and high-yield approaches, alongside thematic funds targeting areas like artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, cannabis, and other innovative sectors. KraneShares distinguishes itself through a diversified portfolio of specialized ETFs designed for investors seeking exposure beyond traditional asset classes, with a particular emphasis on capturing opportunities in evolving industries and alternative income generation strategies.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on KWEB.

See all KraneShares ETFs

Invesco

ETFs246

Total AUM$992B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

Invesco is a major ETF provider known for offering a comprehensive lineup spanning multiple asset classes and investment strategies. The company specializes in income-focused products including dividend, covered call, and bond strategies, while also maintaining broad exposure across equity, factor-based, thematic, and ESG investing themes. Invesco's portfolio ranges from index-tracking funds to alternatives and specialized offerings like digital assets and BulletShares, making it one of the more expansive ETF families available to investors.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on QQQ.

See all Invesco ETFs

Want to go deeper?

Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — free to start, no credit card.

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Quick verdict

KWEB (KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF) and QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust) are both dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.

KWEB offers the higher yield at 8.05% vs 0.45% for QQQ. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.

QQQ is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.18% compared to 0.69%.

They have different reference exposures: KWEB is linked to CSI Overseas China Internet Index while QQQ is linked to Nasdaq-100 Index, which means their performance drivers differ.

QQQ is the larger fund by assets ($484B), which generally means tighter spreads and better liquidity.

Who should choose each?

Choose KWEB

KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF

Want higher current income — KWEB yields 8.05% vs 0.45% for QQQ.
Want broad equity exposure.
Prefer lower volatility — a beta of 0.8 vs 1.3 for QQQ.

Choose QQQ

Invesco QQQ Trust

Want a growth tilt and can accept larger swings for more upside.
Want to keep costs low — a 0.18% expense ratio vs 0.69% for KWEB.

Not sure? Use the income calculator and snapshot above to weigh these trade-offs against your own goals.

Still deciding? Track KWEB & QQQ for free

Create a free Dividend Vision account to keep them on a watchlist, get notified when they declare dividends, and see how much income they would add to your portfolio.

Add to my watchlist See what a free account includes

Deep dive

Yield & income

On a $10,000 investment, KWEB would generate roughly $67.08/month, while QQQ would produce $3.75/month, at current distribution rates.

KWEB yield8.05%

QQQ yield0.45%

Monthly diff on $10K$63.33

Cost & efficiency

Over 10 years on $10,000, KWEB would cost approximately $690 in fees vs $180 for QQQ (simplified, not compounded). The $510.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.

KWEB ER0.69%

QQQ ER0.18%

Strategy & risk

KWEB tracks CSI Overseas China Internet Index with an international approach, while QQQ tracks Nasdaq-100 Index with a growth approach. Beta is 0.78 for KWEB and 1.26 for QQQ, making KWEB the less volatile of the two by this measure.

KWEB beta0.78

QQQ beta1.26

Fund details

KWEB is managed by KraneShares (launched 07/31/2013) with $5.04B in assets. QQQ is managed by Invesco (launched 03/10/1999) with $484B in assets.

KWEB AUM$5.04B

QQQ AUM$484B

Ready to act?

Open in Comparator Model in portfolio See pricing

Frequently asked questions

What is the current distribution yield for KWEB and QQQ?

KWEB currently distributes 8.05% and QQQ 0.45%, based on fund data updated September 2026. Distribution yield moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.

Is KWEB or QQQ better for dividend income?

It depends on your goals. KWEB currently offers the higher distribution yield, which means more income per dollar invested. However, a lower-yield fund may offer better total return or lower volatility. Consider your time horizon and risk tolerance.

What is the difference between KWEB and QQQ?

KWEB (KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF) tracks CSI Overseas China Internet Index with an international approach, while QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust) tracks Nasdaq-100 Index with a growth approach. They are issued by KraneShares and Invesco respectively.

Can I hold both KWEB and QQQ?

Yes — nothing prevents holding both. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on how much the underlying exposures overlap, which isn't fully measurable from the data on this page; review each security's holdings, sector, and strategy before treating them as complementary.

Is KWEB or QQQ safer?

By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — they are effectively tied: QQQ scores 97, KWEB scores 96. Neither has a clear safety edge on that measure. KWEB has also shown lower price volatility (beta 0.78 vs 1.26 for QQQ). No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee.

Which has lower fees, KWEB or QQQ?

KWEB has an expense ratio of 0.69% while QQQ charges 0.18%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.

How much income does $10,000 in KWEB vs QQQ generate?

At current rates, $10,000 in KWEB would generate roughly $67.08 per month ($805.00 annually). The same in QQQ would produce about $3.75 per month ($45.00 annually).

Which has performed better historically, KWEB or QQQ?

More comparisons to explore

People also compare KWEB with

People also compare QQQ with

Popular comparisons

KWEB vs QQQ — at a glance

Generated August 29, 2026.

Overview

KWEB is an ETF tracking China-focused internet and technology companies listed overseas, while QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100, a broad index of 100 large non-financial U.S. stocks with a heavy growth and technology tilt. The key distinction is geography and composition: KWEB isolates Chinese tech exposure with a 8.05% distribution rate, while QQQ captures U.S. mega-cap growth stocks with a 0.45% yield and far larger asset base ($484B vs. $5.04B).

How they differ

The most obvious split is geography and regulatory backdrop. KWEB's underlying companies operate in China and face geopolitical risk, regulatory uncertainty, and capital controls that don't apply to QQQ's U.S. holdings. tech giants. Third, volatility profiles differ meaningfully—KWEB's beta of 0.78 suggests lower market-correlated swings than QQQ's 1.26, though that lower beta may partly reflect China-specific headwinds dampening correlation rather than true diversification. KWEB charges 0.69% in expenses versus QQQ's 0.18%, and QQQ's $484B in assets dwarfs KWEB's $5.04B, giving QQQ tighter spreads and easier trading.

Who each is best for

KWEB: Fits investors comfortable holding international equities in a concentrated, geopolitically sensitive market and seeking material current income from technology exposure rather than capital appreciation as the primary driver.

QQQ: Fits investors seeking broad, liquid large-cap U.S. growth exposure with minimal income requirements and lower costs, and who view the Nasdaq-100's tech and innovation concentration as a feature, not a bug.

Key risks to know

China regulatory and geopolitical risk: KWEB holds companies operating under a regulatory environment subject to sudden policy shifts, data restrictions, and capital controls. U.S.–China tensions and ongoing enforcement actions against Chinese tech firms add uncertainty QQQ does not face.

NAV erosion potential at high distribution rates: KWEB's 8.05% yield, if it relies meaningfully on return of capital or price appreciation in a flat market, may erode net asset value over time; the structure of that distribution (total return rebalancing vs. dividends) warrants verification.

Valuation and market-cycle sensitivity: QQQ's 1.26 beta and concentration in high-momentum growth stocks make it acutely sensitive to interest-rate expectations and multiple-compression risk during tightening cycles. KWEB's lower beta doesn't offset its exposure to Chinese regulatory pressure.

Scale and trading friction: KWEB's $5.04B in AUM is considerably smaller, which can widen bid-ask spreads and may limit liquidity during market stress, particularly if China-specific sell-offs accelerate.

Valuation overlap risk: Both funds hold Chinese and U.S. technology leaders with significant international revenue. Sector-level downturns can hit both, so verify holdings to confirm how much concentration they share.

Bottom line

If you want exposure to Chinese internet firms and can tolerate geopolitical uncertainty in exchange for higher yield, KWEB offers that at lower volatility than the broader market. If you prioritize low cost, deep liquidity, and U.S. growth exposure with minimal income drag, QQQ's $484B scale and 0.18% expense ratio stand out. Neither choice is inherently "better"—it hinges on your comfort with China risk and whether you're seeking growth or current income. Past performance in either market doesn't predict future results, especially given shifting regulatory and macroeconomic conditions.

AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.

Learn the method

The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.

Still deciding? Compare them against your own portfolio

See how each ETF fits alongside your real holdings — forecast future income, analyze overlap, and gauge risk. Start a free 7-day Dividend Vision trial and make the call with your full portfolio in view.

Start Free Open in Comparator Browse Screener