CONY vs QQQ ETF Comparison
Compare CONY and QQQ across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between CONY and QQQ?
CONY is YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. CONY is tied to Alternatives; QQQ is tied to Equity. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 53 positions versus 6 for CONY. QQQ has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | CONY | QQQ | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.04% | 0.18% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $364M | $485.9B | Fund |
| Holdings | 6 | 53 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | - | 35% | Fund |
| Average volume | 1,458,162 | 48,821,168 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Alternatives | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | - | +26.1% | Performance |
| YTD return | - | +17% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 919.8% | 19.7% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -63.4% | -12.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 3.19 | 1.43 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.88 | 1.04 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 21.51 | 1.55 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 30/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 8/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | - | 54/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 0/100 | 75/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 29 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 2 of 2 evidence groups support QQQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over CONY, 59 versus 30 as of Sep 9, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. 2 of 2 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals.
Compare YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy 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 comparison for both ETFs using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare CONY 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.
- Risk Resilience0 vs 75QQQ +75
- Quality45 vs 83QQQ +38
2 of 2 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-07, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-06.
Largest factor move: Quality +6
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CONY 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
QQQQQQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 75 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | CONY | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.04% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $364M | $485.9B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 6 | 103 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,458,162 | 48,821,168 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 919.8% | 19.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -63.4% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.88 | 1.04 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 3.19 | 1.43 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, CONY or QQQ?
QQQ currently has more reported holdings, with 53 positions versus 6.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CONY has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
QQQ currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 59 to 30.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 2 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 | 30 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 0 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 CONY and QQQ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 29 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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.
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.
No active signals
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.47%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, 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.
- 1CONY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 75 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2CONY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CONY | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | 2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | 19.9% |
| Year to date | — | 17% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 26.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CONY | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | — | 10.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | 9.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 12.9% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | CONY | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.19 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.88 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 21.51 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -63.4% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -57.3% | -3.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 919.8% | 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, CONY or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 9, 2026, scoring 59 against CONY's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 CONY or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 9, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 2 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over CONY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 75 points; QQQ leads Quality by 38 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, CONY or QQQ?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CONY 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, CONY or QQQ?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CONY or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 75 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 CONY more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What would change the CONY vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CONY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 75 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; CONY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 CONY and QQQ?
CONY: No active signals. 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. On QQQ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CONY and QQQ with others
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.