GMED vs QQQ Stock Comparison
GMED currently leads QQQ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 57. The clearest difference is momentum, while QQQ has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between GMED and QQQ?
GMED leads the current stock comparison as Globus Medical, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Globus Medical, Inc. vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
GMED leads
GMED leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support GMED, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Globus Medical, Inc.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GMED over QQQ, 67 versus 57 as of Oct 31, 2026. GMED's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. GMED also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor GMED today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. GMED lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GMED now leads by 10.
Compare Globus Medical, Inc. 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 GMED 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.
- Momentum74 vs 46GMED +28
- Value54 vs 35GMED +19
- Quality71 vs 81QQQ +10
- Risk Resilience76 vs 69GMED +7
3 of 4 evidence groups favor GMED. GMED’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Quality -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
GMED's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GMED and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GMED (Globus Medical, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, technicals.
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
GMEDGMED on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
GMEDGMED on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
GMEDGMED on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
GMEDGMED on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 | GMED | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +38% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | — | 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 GMED. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GMED | 67 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | GMED | Value 54 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GMED | Risk Resilience 76 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 GMED 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GMED.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30GMED lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GMED now leads by 10.
- Today
- GMED +10
- 67 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- GMED +16
- 66 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 61 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when QQQ moved ahead of GMED.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only GMED
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.35%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.88%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
GMED 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 -5.86%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.47%, 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to GMED's edge.
- 2QQQ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GMED'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 | GMED | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 21.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 68.5% | — |
| Operating margin | 20.8% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.6% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GMED | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.3% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.5% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | 6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.4% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -6.9% | 18.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.5% | 17.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | GMED | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73 | 39.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.7 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32% | 19.5% |
Risk
GMED is the more resilient| Metric | GMED | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.67 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.54 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -24.3% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16.1% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.8% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GMED or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GMED is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 67 against QQQ's 57. The edge comes from momentum and value. QQQ 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 GMED or QQQ the better buy right now?
GMED carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GMED over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GMED leads Momentum by 28 points; GMED leads Value by 19 points; QQQ leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GMED or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +24.7% upside for GMED 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, GMED or QQQ?
GMED is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GMED on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, GMED 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, GMED or QQQ?
GMED on the Momentum factor, by 28 points. 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, GMED or QQQ?
GMED is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GMED on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 GMED more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is GMED's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
GMED lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GMED now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when QQQ moved ahead of GMED.
What would change the GMED vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to GMED's edge; QQQ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; GMED'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 GMED and QQQ?
GMED: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 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 GMED is Death Cross Active (bearish, 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.