CLF vs QQQ Stock Comparison
QQQ currently leads CLF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while CLF has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CLF and QQQ?
QQQ leads the current stock comparison as Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over CLF, 57 versus 45 as of Oct 31, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CLF holds the stronger value profile. QQQ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. 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 CLF 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.
- Quality11 vs 81QQQ +70
- Risk Resilience27 vs 69QQQ +42
- Value65 vs 35CLF +30
- Momentum72 vs 46CLF +26
2 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CLF keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Quality -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
QQQ's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLF and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 82.5% against 19.5%.
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
QQQQQQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CLFCLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 42 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 | CLF | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -9.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +65.5% | — | 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QQQ | 45 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CLF | Value 65 vs 35 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day 16.3% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 22.7% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 27 vs 69 |
| 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 CLF 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 QQQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +12
- 45 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +5
- 45 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +20
- 44 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +20
- 39 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CLF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.25%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active.
QQQ 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 -0.07%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.47%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 70 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2CLF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
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 | CLF | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 208% | — |
| Gross margin | 1.9% | — |
| Operating margin | -1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.1% | — |
| Debt to equity | 1.34 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CLF | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 26.6% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.9% | 6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 5% | 18.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.2% | 17.6% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | CLF | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.9 | 39.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.3% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22.7% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 82.5% | 19.5% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | CLF | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.09 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.39 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -48.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.5% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLF or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 57 against CLF's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CLF is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CLF or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 QQQ over CLF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Quality by 70 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 42 points; CLF leads Value by 30 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLF or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply -9.2% upside for CLF 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, CLF or QQQ?
CLF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, CLF 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, CLF or QQQ?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, CLF or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 42 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 CLF more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over CLF getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CLF vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 70 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; CLF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLF and QQQ?
CLF: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 CLF 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.