Verified factor-similar pair

GGUS vs QQQM

These two ETFs pass the same FF6 US similarity lane: US-listed equity ETFs, same USD model basis, at least one material non-market factor, and 100% overlap in statistically significant material factor exposure.

HML
Similarity score
80
Verified similar

Score blends exposure-level distance, factor-vector shape, market-beta closeness, and a small backtested relative-Sharpe term.

GGUS

Marketbeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF
HML
Adj. R2
0.961
Rel. Sharpe
1.062
Mkt beta
1.02
AUM
US$401M
MER
0.12%
Valuation
115

QQQM

Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
HML
Adj. R2
0.939
Rel. Sharpe
1.126
Mkt beta
1.10
AUM
US$74.7B
MER
0.15%
Valuation
143

Factor Exposure Match

Blue bars compare raw factor beta magnitude. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength. Dim bars indicate the t-stat is below 1.96.

SMB
GGUS
-0.08
|t|
-1.1
QQQM
-0.17
|t|
-2.3
diff +0.09
HML
GGUS
-0.46
|t|
-5.4
QQQM
-0.31
|t|
-4.7
diff -0.15
RMW
GGUS
-0.10
|t|
-1.1
QQQM
-0.07
|t|
-0.9
diff -0.02
CMA
GGUS
+0.08
|t|
+0.9
QQQM
-0.09
|t|
-1.1
diff +0.18
UMD
GGUS
-0.06
|t|
-1.0
QQQM
-0.04
|t|
-0.7
diff -0.03

Why This Pair Matches

Exposure level
77
Exposure shape
93
Mkt beta diff
0.08
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.064

This comparison focuses on measured factor exposure, not a qualitative review of each fund's portfolio-construction process. Backtested relative Sharpe is included as a secondary signal, while we continue refining a comparison metric that separates factor payoff from alpha. See methodology.

GGUS fund page QQQM fund page US ETF Leaders US Universe
Important context

VerifiedBeta publishes educational ETF research, not personalized investment advice, portfolio management, or security recommendations. Funds that screen well here can still be unsuitable for your objectives, taxes, liquidity needs, or constraints. Review fund documents, methodology assumptions, and your own circumstances before acting. See the full disclaimer.