FNGD vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FNGD and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FNGD is MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 10 for FNGD. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQ ahead on AIQ Score, 50 versus 48.
What is the main difference between FNGD and QQQ?
FNGD and QQQ both concentrate in Technology, at 61% and 59% of assets.
| Metric | FNGD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 10 | 107 |
| Average volume | 430,083 | 37,499,418 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -41.7% | +15.2% |
| YTD return | -46.6% | +14.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -62.7% | +13.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 68.7% | 20.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.5% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -99.7% | -35.1% |
| Beta | -4.53 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 1.02 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 48/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 73/100 | 15/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 1/100 | 69/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 28 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over FNGD, 50 versus 48 as of Oct 24, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while FNGD holds the stronger momentum 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FNGD vs QQQ: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | FNGD | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 10 | 107 | QQQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -99.7% | -35.1% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 68.7% | 20.1% | QQQ |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
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 FNGD 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 Resilience1 vs 69QQQ +68
- Momentum73 vs 15FNGD +58
- Quality50 vs 82QQQ +32
- Value48 vs 36FNGD +12
2 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; FNGD keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Value -4, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QQQ's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNGD 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.
FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 63.2% against 18.4%.
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 | FNGD | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 10 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 430,083 | 37,499,418 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 68.7% | 20.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.5% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 0.66 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -4.53 | 1.45 | 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.
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 | Even | 48 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FNGD | Value 48 vs 36 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day 8.9% vs -3%; vs 200-day -34.3% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 1 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 FNGD 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 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 · Jun 24 – Oct 23QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +2
- 48 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +16
- 41 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +28
- 39 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +26
- 33 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FNGD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (65.72%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.79%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.16%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.68%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.01%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 68 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2FNGD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 26 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-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.
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FNGD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.7% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.8% | 3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -37.2% | 6.1% |
| Year to date | -46.6% | 14.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -41.7% | 15.2% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | FNGD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.3 | 24 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.9% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -34.3% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63.2% | 18.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | FNGD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -4.53 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -73.5% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -67.2% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 68.7% | 20.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FNGD and QQQ?
FNGD and QQQ both concentrate in Technology, at 61% and 59% of assets.
Which ETF is more diversified, FNGD or QQQ?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 10 for FNGD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.95% for FNGD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
FNGD has been more volatile over the past year, at 68.7% annualized against 20.1% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35.1% against -99.7% for FNGD.
Compare FNGD and QQQ with others
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.