BTG vs QQQ Stock Comparison
BTG currently leads QQQ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 51. The clearest difference is value, while QQQ has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BTG and QQQ?
BTG leads the current stock comparison as B2Gold Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
B2Gold Corp. vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
BTG leads
BTG leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support BTG, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
B2Gold Corp.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BTG over QQQ, 62 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. BTG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BTG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BTG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. BTG lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BTG now leads by 11.
Compare B2Gold Corp. 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 BTG 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.
- Value68 vs 35BTG +33
- Momentum48 vs 21BTG +27
- Risk Resilience52 vs 72QQQ +20
- Quality72 vs 82QQQ +10
2 of 4 evidence groups favor BTG. BTG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; QQQ keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
BTG's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BTG and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BTG (B2Gold Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.
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
BTGBTG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
BTGBTG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
BTGBTG on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | BTG | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.5% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +40.5% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BTG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BTG | 62 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | BTG | Value 68 vs 35 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.5% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 8% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 52 vs 72 |
| 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 BTG and QQQ 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.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 BTG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BTG lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BTG now leads by 11.
- Today
- BTG +11
- 62 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- BTG +3
- 60 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 63 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- BTG +2
- 69 vs 67
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when BTG 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BTG
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.95%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
BTG 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.96%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTG's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3BTG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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 | BTG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -32.7% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 106.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 49.2% | — |
| Operating margin | 46% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.9% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.11 | — |
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BTG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.8% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 31.6% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.2% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 15.3% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10% | 19.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BTG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 9.7 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.5% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.9% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | BTG | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -41.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16.3% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 61.3% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BTG or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BTG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against QQQ's 51. The edge comes from value and momentum. QQQ 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 BTG or QQQ the better buy right now?
BTG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BTG over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BTG leads Value by 33 points; BTG leads Momentum by 27 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BTG or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +17.5% upside for BTG and not covered for QQQ. 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, BTG or QQQ?
BTG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BTG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, BTG 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, BTG or QQQ?
BTG on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, BTG or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 BTG more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is BTG's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
BTG lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BTG now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when BTG moved ahead of QQQ.
What would change the BTG vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQ closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTG's edge; QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; BTG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BTG and QQQ?
BTG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. QQQ: 1 bullish / 2 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 BTG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, 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.