FNGD vs QQQ ETF Comparison
Compare FNGD and QQQ across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between FNGD and QQQ?
FNGD is MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. FNGD is tied to Equity; QQQ is tied to Equity. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 102 positions versus 10 for FNGD. FNGD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | FNGD | QQQ | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $406M | $489.6B | Fund |
| Holdings | 10 | 102 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 130% | 76% | Fund |
| Average volume | 2,335,583 | 48,821,168 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 68% | 19.7% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -70.2% | -12.2% | Risk |
| Beta | -4.45 | 1.43 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.94 | 1.07 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -1.41 | 1.60 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 35/100 | 58/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 7/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 36/100 | 51/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 1/100 | 74/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 33 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 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, 58 versus 35 as of Sep 5, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while FNGD 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 23 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.
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 Resilience15%1 vs 74QQQ +73
- Quality30%51 vs 83QQQ +32
- Momentum25%36 vs 51QQQ +15
- Value30%36 vs 31FNGD +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; FNGD keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
QQQ's lead widened by 9 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 48.7% against 13.5%.
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
FNGDFNGD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
QQQQQQ on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 73 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 | FNGD | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $406M | $489.6B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 10 | 103 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,335,583 | 48,821,168 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 68% | 19.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -70.2% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.94 | 1.07 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -4.45 | 1.43 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
FNGD and QQQ share 40.62% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings.
FNGD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 130% of the fund, against 76.03% for QQQ (10 holdings vs 102). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
4 holdings are unique to FNGD and 96 to QQQ. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | FNGD | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple | 20% | 15.31% | 15.31% |
| AMZNAmazon | 20% | 8.85% | 8.85% |
| NVDANVIDIA | 10% | 8.78% | 8.78% |
| GOOGLAlphabet | 10% | 3.17% | 3.17% |
| TSLATesla | 10% | 2.99% | 2.99% |
| NFLXNetflix | 10% | 1.53% | 1.53% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, FNGD or QQQ?
QQQ currently has more reported holdings, with 102 positions versus 10.
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?
FNGD 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, 58 to 35.
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 | 35 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FNGD | Value 36 vs 31 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -17.1% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day -45.8% vs 9.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 1 vs 74 |
| 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 wide at 23 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 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 22 – Sep 3QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +23
- 35 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +22
- 37 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +33
- 32 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +24
- 34 vs 58
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.
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%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.20%)
- 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 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 +0.18%, AIQ +5 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 73 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 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 23-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.
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | FNGD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43 | 40.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.1 | 11.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -17.1% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -45.8% | 9.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.7% | 13.5% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | FNGD | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -4.45 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.94 | 1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.41 | 1.6 |
| Max drawdown | -70.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -70.2% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 68% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNGD or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against FNGD's 35. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. FNGD 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 FNGD 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over FNGD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 73 points; QQQ leads Quality by 32 points; QQQ leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, FNGD or QQQ?
FNGD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNGD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, FNGD 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, FNGD or QQQ?
QQQ on the Momentum factor, by 15 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 QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 73 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 FNGD more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over FNGD getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FNGD vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FNGD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 73 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; FNGD'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 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 23-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FNGD and QQQ?
FNGD: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 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 FNGD is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On QQQ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNGD and QQQ with others
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.