Skip to content

CQTM vs LAZR

Corgi Quantum Computing ETF

CQTMBCboe

Tema Photonics & Optical ETF

LAZRCNYSE Arca

Overlap

Expense ratio

CQTM −0.40pt a year

CQTM0.35%LAZR0.75%

Avg volume · 30D

LAZR 8.7×the volume

CQTM21.3KLAZR186K

CQTM vs LAZR Performance

Jul 31, 2026 – Oct 30, 2026

−23.5%CQTM−9.0%LAZR

Jul 31, 2026 to Oct 30, 2026. CQTM −23.5%. LAZR −9.0%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%10%20%30%Jul 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
CQTM 0.35%, better
LAZR 0.75%
Fund size
CQTM $15M
LAZR $203M
Holdings
CQTM 20
LAZR 25
Avg volume (30D)
CQTM 21.3K sh
LAZR 186K sh, better
NAV per share
CQTM $17.66
LAZR $34.27
52W range

ETF.net Grade

CQTM: Cost 88, Risk 46, Mission not scored, Tradability 46, Holdings 52, Durability 55. LAZR: Cost 22, Risk 53, Mission not scored, Tradability 51, Holdings 55, Durability 65.
Pillar letters and Scores for CQTM, LAZR, with each pillar’s weight
PillarCQTMLAZR
Cost30% weightA88HigherF22
Mission25% weightNot scoredNot scored
Risk15% weightC46C53Higher
Tradability15% weightC46C51Higher
Holdings10% weightC52B55Higher
Durability5% weightB55B65Higher

Rank among Quantum Computing & Photonics funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. CQTM and LAZR are both graded against the same 8 Quantum Computing & Photonics funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

See all 8 ›

CQTM ranks 3rd and LAZR 4th of 8 funds in the Quantum Computing & Photonics Category.

  1. Rank 1AEUVCorgi Lithography & Semiconductor Photonics ETFScore 79
  2. Rank 2AWQTMWisdomTree Quantum Computing FundScore 74
  3. Rank 3BCQTMCorgi Quantum Computing ETFScore 64
  4. Rank 4CLAZRTema Photonics & Optical ETFScore 41
  5. Rank 4CLYTERoundhill Photonics & Optics ETFScore 41

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

CQTMBCorgi Quantum Computing ETF

LAZRCTema Photonics & Optical ETF

In short

CQTM An active take on the quantum race that plays both sides: the companies building the machines and the ones building security meant to survive them. Fee is 0.35% a year, under the typical global thematic fund.

LAZR No data

Stated mandate

CQTM The Fund's stated aim is to increase the value of shareholders' investments.

LAZR No data

Why people hold it

  • CQTM 0.35% a year, comfortably below the median fee for the global thematic funds we grade.
  • The 80% mandate stretches past hardware: quantum-enabled technologies and post-quantum security are in scope, so defense against quantum counts alongside the build-out.
  • Actively managed and global in reach (US and international names), so the manager can rotate as the field moves instead of waiting on an index committee.
  • Lands in the upper half of its global thematic peer group in our grading, with no structural red flags on the wrapper (a standard 1940 Act fund).

LAZR No data

Worth knowing

  • CQTM Launched in 2026, so the track record is short, and volatility has screened high even by single-theme standards. Our read on its risk rests on limited history.
  • Small asset base and light trading volume, which tends to mean wider gaps between the buy and sell price than on household-name ETFs.
  • The mandate targets capital appreciation and the fund has not been paying regular distributions, so this is a price-return holding.

LAZR No data

Full CQTM profile⁠

Full LAZR profile⁠

CQTM vs LAZR Holdings

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

CQTM vs LAZR Cost

Overpaying LAZR vs CQTM

$7,356

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • CQTM 0.35%

    $7,126

  • LAZR 0.75%

    $14,482

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • CQTM 0.35%
  • LAZR 0.75%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K051015202530LAZR $14,482CQTM $7,126

Year by year

YearCQTMLAZROverpaying
10$634$1,336$702
20$2,454$5,078$2,624
30$7,126$14,482$7,356

Expense ratio

  • 0.35%CQTM, cheaper
  • 0.75%LAZR
  • Middle half of Quantum Computing & Photonics funds
  • Median 0.54%

CQTM cheapest of 8 funds

LAZR 7th cheapest of 8 funds

CQTM vs LAZR Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Payout (12M)
CQTM None
LAZR None

Distribution history

CQTMAll CQTM payments⁠

No distribution history available.

LAZRAll LAZR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

CQTM vs LAZR Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
CQTM 4.26LAZR 7.78

CQTM and LAZR in the news

Popular comparisons

  • CQTMBvsEUVA

    Corgi Quantum Computing ETF · Corgi Lithography & Semiconductor Photonics ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.35%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • LAZRCvsEUVA

    Tema Photonics & Optical ETF · Corgi Lithography & Semiconductor Photonics ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.75% · 0.35%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • CQTMBvsWQTMA

    Corgi Quantum Computing ETF · WisdomTree Quantum Computing Fund

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.45%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • LAZRCvsWQTMA

    Tema Photonics & Optical ETF · WisdomTree Quantum Computing Fund

    Expense ratio
    0.75% · 0.45%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • CQTMBvsLYTEC

    Corgi Quantum Computing ETF · Roundhill Photonics & Optics ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.65%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • LAZRCvsLYTEC

    Tema Photonics & Optical ETF · Roundhill Photonics & Optics ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.75% · 0.65%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.