ATO vs QQQ Stock Comparison
Compare ATO vs QQQ on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between ATO and QQQ?
ATO and QQQ are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Atmos Energy Corporation vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
ATO and QQQ are effectively level
ATO and QQQ are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Atmos Energy Corporation
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate ATO and QQQ as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Atmos Energy Corporation and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ATO and QQQ 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.
- Momentum74 vs 46ATO +28
- Quality57 vs 82QQQ +25
- Risk Resilience58 vs 69QQQ +11
- Value41 vs 35ATO +6
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ATO's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ATO and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
ATOATO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
ATOATO on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | ATO | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +17.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | ATO | Value 41 vs 35 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 5.1% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -2.7% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 58 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- ATO +7
- 57 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +20
- 47 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 47 vs 55
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when ATO moved ahead of QQQ.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ATO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.18%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.88%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 +0.78%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.47%, AIQ +5 points).
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 | ATO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -55.2% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -58.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 61% | — |
| Operating margin | 37% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.67 | — |
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ATO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.4% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.7% | 6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.7% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 1.1% | 18.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.6% | 17.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ATO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69 | 39.4 |
| ADX (14) | 34 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.1% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.7% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.6% | 19.5% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | ATO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.2 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.35 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.54 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -18.8% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -11.8% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 16% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, ATO or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +6.7% upside for ATO and not covered for QQQ. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ATO or QQQ?
ATO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ATO 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, ATO or QQQ?
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, ATO or QQQ?
ATO on the Momentum factor, by 28 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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, ATO or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ATO more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about ATO and QQQ?
ATO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 ATO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On QQQ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.