CRDO vs QQQ Stock Comparison
QQQ currently leads CRDO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 44. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CRDO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CRDO and QQQ?
QQQ leads the current stock comparison as Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over CRDO, 51 versus 44 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while CRDO holds the stronger quality profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 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 CRDO 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 Resilience40 vs 72QQQ +32
- Value25 vs 35QQQ +10
- Quality87 vs 82CRDO +5
- Momentum19 vs 21Even
4 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; CRDO keeps a meaningful quality 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
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 — CRDO 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 value.
CRDO (Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 75.4% against 15.4%.
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
QQQQQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 | CRDO | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.9% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +52.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 44 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QQQ | Value 25 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -10.3% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day -5% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 40 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 CRDO 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +7
- 44 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +12
- 45 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +7
- 58 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 64 vs 67
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when QQQ moved ahead of CRDO.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CRDO
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.59%)
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.
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +6.28%, 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.
- 1CRDO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2CRDO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ'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 | CRDO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7% | — |
| Gross margin | 67.1% | — |
| Operating margin | 31.7% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 27.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | — |
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CRDO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -13.5% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.9% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.9% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.4% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 19.2% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.6% | 19.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | CRDO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16.4 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.3% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 75.4% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | CRDO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.35 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -53.6% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -43.3% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 95.1% | 19.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.9% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRDO or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against CRDO's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. CRDO is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CRDO or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 4 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 CRDO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; QQQ leads Value by 10 points; CRDO leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRDO or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +49.9% upside for CRDO 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, CRDO or QQQ?
QQQ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, CRDO 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, CRDO 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, CRDO or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 CRDO more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over CRDO getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. 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 2026-07-24, when QQQ moved ahead of CRDO.
What would change the CRDO vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRDO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; CRDO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; QQQ'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 CRDO and QQQ?
CRDO: 1 bullish / 1 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 CRDO 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.