But none of this contradicts the fact that the biggest companies don't USUALLY do better than the average.

I don't get it. How did the biggest companies become the biggest if they weren't better than average? Seems to me that they became biggest BECAUSE they were better than average.

All this reminds me of a Forbes column I ripped out and saved in the late 90's. He said that (at that time) that you needed to be in the mega-cap stocks because that's what was working best.

Anyway....I ran that QQQ vs. QQQE comparison to answer his question. We are limited by the QQQE inception date.

For grins, I just ran the same comparison of RSP vs. SPY. RSP began May 2003
For all rolling 12-month periods,
RSP beat SPY 119 times.
SPY beat RSP 124 times.
SPY has been beating RSP since 4/2023.

Looking at the portfolio values on testfol.io, RSP was clearly superior for most of the time, although they are about equal now.



but counting how well you did each month or each trimester or each year by betting with odds that do not reflect the long-term average is not a convincing argument.

Yeah, well, we are all smarter than the average bear. The thing to do is when there is a trend we should hop on until the trend stops.
Yes, some day this trend will end. Perhaps we will jump off then.