CGCP vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CGCP and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CGCP is Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CGCP ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 51.
| Metric | CGCP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -6.7% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | -5.6% | +16.8% |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 91/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
CGCP leads
CGCP leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support CGCP.
Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CGCP over QQQ, 57 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. CGCP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. CGCP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGCP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree.
Compare Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare CGCP 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.
- Momentum58 vs 21CGCP +37
- Quality61 vs 82QQQ +21
- Risk Resilience91 vs 72CGCP +19
- Value36 vs 35Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor CGCP. CGCP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
The central trade-off
CGCP (Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 5.5%.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CGCP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CGCP | 57 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day -3.9% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CGCP | Risk Resilience 91 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 CGCP 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 6 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 CGCP.
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 Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to CGCP's edge.
- 2QQQ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CGCP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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.
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CGCP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.1% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | -5.6% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.7% | 19.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | CGCP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.4 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 35.7 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.9% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.5% | 15.4% |
Compare CGCP and QQQ with others
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.