If you want exposure to the Nasdaq-100, three funds worth understanding are:
- QQQ
- QQQM
- XNAS
All three aim to give investors exposure to the Nasdaq-100, but they are not identical from the perspective of a Singapore investor.
QQQ and QQQM are US-domiciled.
XNAS is Irish-domiciled, UCITS compliant and accumulating.
So the question is not simply:
“Which ETF has the lowest fee?”
It is also:
“Which fund structure makes sense for what I am trying to do?”
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax or investment advice. Fund information and tax rules can change. Always check the latest fund documents before investing.
The Quick Take
| Feature | QQQ | QQQM | XNAS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tracks | Nasdaq-100 | Nasdaq-100 | Nasdaq-100 |
| Domicile | United States | United States | Ireland |
| Expense ratio / fee | 0.18% | 0.15% | 0.20% |
| Income | Distributing | Distributing | Capitalizing / accumulating |
| UCITS | No | No | Yes |
| US estate-tax consideration | US-domiciled security | US-domiciled security | Irish-domiciled fund |
| Main appeal | Massive liquidity / trading | Lower-cost US buy-and-hold | Irish structure + accumulation |
My simplified view:
QQQ is built around liquidity. QQQM is the cheaper US-domiciled long-term version. XNAS gives up a little on headline fee for an Irish-domiciled accumulating structure.
QQQ
Invesco QQQ is the giant of the three.
Invesco reported that QQQ ended August 2026 with approximately US$489.84 billion in assets under management.
Its total expense ratio is currently listed at 0.18%.
Why QQQ is popular
- Enormous liquidity
- Very established
- Active options market
- Tight trading ecosystem
- Direct Nasdaq-100 exposure
For an investor actively trading the ETF or its options, those advantages can matter.
But for someone simply buying every month for decades, liquidity beyond a certain point may matter less than ongoing structure and costs.
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) tracks the same Nasdaq-100 Index but has a lower total expense ratio of 0.15%.
That makes QQQM particularly relevant for investors who want a US-domiciled Nasdaq-100 ETF but do not need QQQ’s enormous trading volume or options ecosystem.
In simple terms:
QQQ is generally the trading/liquidity-focused product, while QQQM is easier to justify as the lower-fee US buy-and-hold version.
Both, however, remain US-domiciled.
That means the domicile considerations do not disappear simply because QQQM is cheaper.
XNAS
Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAS) is structurally different.
DWS lists:
- Domicile: Ireland
- All-in fee: 0.20% p.a.
- Income treatment: Capitalizing
- Physical/direct replication
- Fund launch: January 2021
The April 2026 official factsheet reported approximately US$2.10 billion in total fund assets.
So yes, XNAS is much smaller than QQQ.
But a multi-billion-dollar ETF is very different from a newly launched fund with only a few million dollars.
Dividend Withholding
For a Singapore investor who is a nonresident alien for US tax purposes, the IRS generally applies 30% withholding to US-source dividends unless a lower treaty rate applies.
QQQ and QQQM are US-domiciled funds distributing income to the investor.
An Irish-resident fund can generally receive qualifying US portfolio dividends under the US-Ireland treaty at a 15% treaty rate at fund level.
This is one reason investors compare the headline TER with the underlying tax drag rather than looking at TER alone.
The trade-off
| ETF | Headline fee | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| QQQ | 0.18% | US domiciled |
| QQQM | 0.15% | US domiciled |
| XNAS | 0.20% | Irish domiciled, accumulating |
XNAS therefore costs:
- 0.02 percentage points more than QQQ
- 0.05 percentage points more than QQQM
But headline TER is only one piece of the total picture.
Accumulating vs Distributing
QQQ and QQQM distribute income.
XNAS is capitalizing, another term commonly used for accumulating.
Instead of paying the fund’s net income out to you as cash, the accumulating share class retains it within the fund.
This can be convenient for a long-term investor who would otherwise reinvest every distribution manually.
Again:
Accumulating does not mean tax-free dividends.
The fund-level withholding still exists before the net income remains within the fund.
Estate-Tax Considerations
QQQ and QQQM are US-domiciled securities.
XNAS is Irish-domiciled.
For nonresident noncitizens, US securities can be relevant when assessing US estate-tax exposure.
That does not automatically make a US ETF unsuitable.
It simply means domicile deserves a place in the decision.
For a deeper explanation:
US Estate Tax for Singapore Investors: Why the US$60,000 Figure Matters
Does XNAS Being Smaller Matter?
This was one of my biggest initial concerns.
Very small ETFs can face disadvantages such as:
- wider bid-ask spreads
- weaker liquidity
- a higher chance of eventual closure
- less trading activity
But size needs context.
DWS reported US$2.10 billion of total fund assets in its April 2026 XNAS factsheet.
That is tiny compared with QQQ.
It is still substantial in absolute terms.
For a normal retail investor making long-term purchases, I would therefore look at actual trading spreads, brokerage access and order execution rather than rejecting it purely because QQQ is hundreds of billions larger.
So Why Not Just Buy QQQM?
This is a fair question.
QQQM has the lowest headline expense ratio of the three at 0.15%.
If you specifically want:
- a US-domiciled Nasdaq-100 ETF
- a long-term buy-and-hold vehicle
- a lower fee than QQQ
then QQQM is straightforward.
The reason to consider XNAS is not because it tracks a better Nasdaq-100.
It is because it offers a different fund wrapper:
Ireland domicile + UCITS + accumulation
Whether that is worth an additional 0.05% TER versus QQQM depends on what you personally prioritise.
Which One Makes Sense?
QQQ
Worth researching if you prioritise:
- maximum liquidity
- active trading
- options
- an extremely established fund
QQQM
Worth researching if you prioritise:
- US listing
- long-term Nasdaq-100 exposure
- a lower expense ratio than QQQ
- less need for QQQ’s trading ecosystem
XNAS
Worth researching if you prioritise:
- Irish domicile
- UCITS
- accumulating structure
- reducing reliance on US-domiciled ETF holdings
- long-term passive accumulation
My Current View
For an investor who definitely wants a US-domiciled Nasdaq-100 ETF, I find QQQM easier to justify for long-term holding than QQQ because of its lower expense ratio.
QQQ still has a clear role where liquidity and options matter.
For a Singapore investor focused primarily on long-term accumulation, XNAS is interesting because its 0.20% fee is only part of the equation.
The Irish domicile and accumulating structure are what make the comparison worth doing.
Do not compare ETFs using TER alone. Compare the entire wrapper.
I would choose XNAS > QQQM > QQQ
Bottom Line
All three funds give you Nasdaq-100 exposure.
But they serve somewhat different priorities.
| If you prioritise… | Fund worth researching |
|---|---|
| Liquidity / options / trading | QQQ |
| Lower-cost US buy-and-hold | QQQM |
| Irish-domiciled accumulation | XNAS |
That is why I would not describe one of them as universally “best”.
The better question is:
Which structure solves the problem you actually have?
Related BAM Guides
- US Estate Tax for Singapore Investors: Why the US$60,000 Figure Matters
- VOO vs SPYL vs CSPX: S&P 500 ETFs for Singapore Investors
- Best Brokers for Buying Irish-Domiciled UCITS ETFs in Singapore
Official Sources / Further Reading
- Invesco — Invesco QQQ ETF
- Invesco — QQQ / QQQM Innovation Suite and Expense Ratios
- Invesco — Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) Fact Sheet
- DWS / Xtrackers — Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS)
- DWS / Xtrackers — XNAS Official Factsheet
- IRS — US-Source Dividend Withholding for Nonresident Aliens
- IRS — US-Ireland Income Tax Treaty
- IRS — Estate Tax for Nonresidents Not Citizens of the United States