AAPL vs QQQM Stock Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQM.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support AAPL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over QQQM, 66 versus 55 as of Sep 5, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while QQQM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. AAPL lead: Reversed — QQQM led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 11.
Compare Apple Inc. and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare AAPL and QQQM against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum25%85 vs 53AAPL +32
- Quality30%80 vs 69AAPL +11
- Risk Resilience15%65 vs 74QQQM +9
- Value30%38 vs 32AAPL +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; QQQM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
AAPL's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and QQQM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
AAPLAAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
QQQMQQQM on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AAPL | QQQM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +47.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 66 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | AAPL | Value 38 vs 32 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 1.8% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day 15.7% vs 9.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQM | Risk Resilience 65 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and QQQM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3AAPL lead: Reversed — QQQM led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 11.
- Today
- AAPL +11
- 66 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +10
- 65 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQM +7
- 52 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when AAPL moved ahead of QQQM.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.81%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.21%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
AAPL leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.51%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, AIQ +6 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1QQQM closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2QQQM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | AAPL | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | — |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | — |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | — |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.8 | 40.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 11.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.8% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.7% | 9.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.1% | 13.5% |
Risk
QQQM is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | QQQM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.25 | 1.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.69 | 1.61 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.5% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 19.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or QQQM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 66 against QQQM's 55. The edge comes from momentum and quality. QQQM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AAPL or QQQM the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over QQQM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AAPL leads Momentum by 32 points; AAPL leads Quality by 11 points; QQQM leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or QQQM?
Analyst price targets imply +2.6% upside for AAPL and not covered for QQQM. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AAPL or QQQM?
AAPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AAPL or QQQM?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AAPL or QQQM?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 32 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AAPL or QQQM?
QQQM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQM on Risk Resilience, by 9 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAPL more profitable than QQQM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is AAPL's lead over QQQM getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Reversed — QQQM led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when AAPL moved ahead of QQQM.
What would change the AAPL vs QQQM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQM closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; QQQM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and QQQM?
AAPL: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. QQQM: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QQQM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.