FORM vs QQQ Stock Comparison
FormFactor, Inc. vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
FormFactor, Inc.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over FORM, 58 versus 40 as of Sep 5, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. 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 Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
Compare FormFactor, Inc. and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FORM 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.
- Momentum25%17 vs 51QQQ +34
- Quality30%61 vs 83QQQ +22
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 74QQQ +20
- Value30%31 vs 30Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FORM 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 at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
QQQQQQ on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | FORM | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +45.5% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +37.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | 40 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 31 vs 30 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day -4.9% vs 9.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 54 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 FORM 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 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +18
- 40 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +15
- 44 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +11
- 56 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +5
- 53 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.97%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.38%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.18%, 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.
- 1FORM closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2FORM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | FORM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.2% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 176.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 45.6% | — |
| Operating margin | 16.9% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | — |
Performance
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FORM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.2% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16% | 0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.6% | -3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.6% | 17.9% |
| Year to date | 73.5% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 240.3% | 26.9% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | FORM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.6 | 40.3 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 11.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.9% | 9.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74.7% | 13.5% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | FORM | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.96 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.81 | 1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.94 | 1.6 |
| Max drawdown | -47.8% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -39.5% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 85.2% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FORM or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against FORM's 40. 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 FORM or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 FORM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QQQ leads Momentum by 34 points; QQQ leads Quality by 22 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FORM or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +45.5% upside for FORM 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, FORM 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, FORM 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, FORM or QQQ?
QQQ on the Momentum factor, by 34 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, FORM or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 FORM more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over FORM getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 18 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FORM vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FORM closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; FORM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FORM and QQQ?
FORM: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 FORM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QQQ 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.