HCA vs QQQ Stock Comparison
QQQ currently leads HCA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while HCA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between HCA and QQQ?
QQQ leads the current stock comparison as Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
HCA Healthcare, Inc. vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
HCA Healthcare, Inc.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over HCA, 57 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while HCA holds the stronger value profile. QQQ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare HCA Healthcare, 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 HCA 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.
- Quality43 vs 82QQQ +39
- Value67 vs 35HCA +32
- Risk Resilience45 vs 69QQQ +24
- Momentum66 vs 46HCA +20
1 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; HCA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
The lead changed hands: QQQ moved ahead of HCA in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HCA 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 quality and risk resilience.
HCA (HCA Healthcare, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 26.1% against 19.5%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
HCAHCA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
HCAHCA on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 | HCA | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.9% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +46.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 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 | 56 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | HCA | Value 67 vs 35 |
| Technicals | HCA | Price vs 50-day 8.9% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 4.2% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 45 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 HCA 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 29 – Oct 28QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +1
- 56 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- HCA +11
- 61 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +12
- 55 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- HCA +3
- 58 vs 55
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 28 when QQQ moved ahead of HCA.
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 HCA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.25%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.88%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 -1.02%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.47%, 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.
- 1HCA closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2HCA'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 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | HCA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.6% | — |
| Gross margin | 28.4% | — |
| Operating margin | 15.5% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -112.9% | — |
| Debt to equity | -7.42 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | HCA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.5% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17% | 6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.5% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | -0.8% | 18.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.6% | 17.6% |
Technicals
HCA has the stronger structure| Metric | HCA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.1 | 39.4 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.9% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.2% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.1% | 19.5% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | HCA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.12 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.01 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -33.7% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -15% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.1% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HCA or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 57 against HCA's 56. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. HCA 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 HCA or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over HCA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Quality by 39 points; HCA leads Value by 32 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HCA or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply -4.9% upside for HCA 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, HCA or QQQ?
HCA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HCA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, HCA 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, HCA or QQQ?
HCA on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, HCA or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 HCA more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over HCA getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-28, when QQQ moved ahead of HCA.
What would change the HCA vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HCA closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; HCA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HCA and QQQ?
HCA: 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 HCA 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.