CLVT vs QQQ Stock Comparison
Clarivate Plc vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Clarivate Plc
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over CLVT, 59 versus 54 as of Sep 5, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CLVT holds the stronger value profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Clarivate Plc and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CLVT 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.
- Value30%75 vs 30CLVT +45
- Risk Resilience15%31 vs 75QQQ +44
- Quality30%46 vs 83QQQ +37
- Momentum25%52 vs 54Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CLVT keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLVT 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 risk resilience and quality.
CLVT (Clarivate Plc): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 54.5% against 12.9%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CLVTCLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 44 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 | CLVT | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | — | 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 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 | 54 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CLVT | Value 75 vs 30 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -2% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day -19.2% vs 9.3% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 31 vs 75 |
| 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 CLVT 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 narrow at 5 points. (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)
- 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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +5
- 54 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +6
- 53 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +16
- 51 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +7
- 51 vs 58
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when QQQ moved ahead of CLVT.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.35%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.65%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.72%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.18%, 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.
- 1CLVT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2CLVT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-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 | CLVT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | — |
| Operating margin | -3.5% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.94 | — |
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CLVT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.5% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 13.7% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.1% | 2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -24.5% | 19.9% |
| Year to date | -38% | 17% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -50.1% | 26.1% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | CLVT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.5 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 11.4 | 10.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.2% | 9.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.5% | 12.9% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | CLVT | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.66 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.09 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -62.5% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -53.8% | -3.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.7% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLVT or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against CLVT's 54. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CLVT 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 CLVT or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ 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 AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over CLVT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CLVT leads Value by 45 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 44 points; QQQ leads Quality by 37 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLVT or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +8.7% upside for CLVT 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, CLVT or QQQ?
CLVT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 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, CLVT 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, CLVT or QQQ?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CLVT or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 44 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 CLVT more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over CLVT getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when QQQ moved ahead of CLVT.
What would change the CLVT vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLVT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; CLVT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLVT and QQQ?
CLVT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. QQQ: 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 CLVT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On QQQ 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.