FNGD vs NVDL Stock Comparison
MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN vs GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF
NVDL leads
NVDL leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 3 evidence groups support NVDL, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN
GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NVDL over FNGD, 50 versus 35 as of Sep 5, 2026. NVDL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. NVDL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor NVDL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. NVDL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN and GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FNGD and NVDL 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.
- Momentum25%36 vs 63NVDL +27
- Quality30%51 vs 65NVDL +14
- Risk Resilience15%1 vs 0Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor NVDL. NVDL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NVDL's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNGD and NVDL 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
NVDLNVDL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
NVDLNVDL on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
FNGDFNGD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor NVDL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NVDL | 35 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | NVDL | Price vs 50-day -17.1% vs 16.9%; vs 200-day -45.8% vs 21.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 1 vs 0 |
| 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 FNGD and NVDL 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 NVDL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3NVDL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NVDL +15
- 35 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- NVDL +12
- 37 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- NVDL +22
- 32 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- NVDL +6
- 34 vs 40
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 29 when FNGD moved ahead of NVDL.
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (48.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.81%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
FNGD is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.98%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.65%, 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.
- 1FNGD closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVDL's edge.
- 2FNGD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NVDL's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate NVDL'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.
Technicals
NVDL has the stronger structure| Metric | FNGD | NVDL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43 | 50.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.1 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -17.1% | 16.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -45.8% | 21.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.7% | 90% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FNGD | NVDL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -4.45 | 3.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.94 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.41 | 1.3 |
| Max drawdown | -70.2% | -42.2% |
| Current drawdown | -70.2% | -13.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 68% | 76.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -7.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNGD or NVDL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NVDL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 50 against FNGD's 35. The edge comes from momentum 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 FNGD or NVDL the better buy right now?
NVDL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 3 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 NVDL over FNGD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. NVDL leads Momentum by 27 points; NVDL leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, FNGD or NVDL?
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, FNGD or NVDL?
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, FNGD or NVDL?
NVDL on the Momentum factor, by 27 points. 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, FNGD or NVDL?
FNGD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FNGD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FNGD more profitable than NVDL?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is NVDL's lead over FNGD getting stronger or weaker?
NVDL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-29, when FNGD moved ahead of NVDL.
What would change the FNGD vs NVDL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FNGD closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVDL's edge; FNGD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NVDL's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate NVDL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FNGD and NVDL?
FNGD: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. NVDL: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 FNGD is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NVDL 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.