MCO vs QQQ Stock Comparison
Compare MCO and QQQ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MCO and QQQ?
QQQ leads the current stock comparison as Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Moody's Corporation vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Moody's Corporation
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over MCO, 56 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions. QQQ leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Moody's Corporation and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MCO 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.
- Momentum14 vs 45QQQ +31
- Risk Resilience52 vs 75QQQ +23
- Quality70 vs 83QQQ +13
- Value24 vs 30QQQ +6
4 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -13
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MCO 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 most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
QQQQQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
QQQQQQ on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 | MCO | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.8% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +20.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QQQ | Value 24 vs 30 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -1.2% vs 7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 52 vs 75 |
| 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 MCO and QQQ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +16
- 40 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +7
- 52 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +10
- 54 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- MCO +9
- 59 vs 50
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when MCO moved ahead of QQQ.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.70%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.75%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.27%)
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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.62%, AIQ -3 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.87%, 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.
- 1MCO closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2MCO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 | MCO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.1% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 34.5% | — |
| Gross margin | 71.9% | — |
| Operating margin | 45.1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 79.7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 2.49 | — |
Performance
QQQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MCO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.6% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.7% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.8% | 16.6% |
| Year to date | -8.5% | 15.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.9% | 22.4% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | MCO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.8 | 48.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17 | 9.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.2% | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27% | 13% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | MCO | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | 1.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.29 | 0.92 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.38 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -23.6% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -13.4% | -5% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MCO or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against MCO's 40. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 MCO or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over MCO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Momentum by 31 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; QQQ leads Quality by 13 points. QQQ leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MCO simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, MCO or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +12.8% upside for MCO 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, MCO or QQQ?
QQQ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, MCO 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, MCO or QQQ?
QQQ on the Momentum factor, by 31 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, MCO or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 MCO more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over MCO getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when MCO moved ahead of QQQ.
What would change the MCO vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MCO closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; MCO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 MCO and QQQ?
MCO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. QQQ: 2 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 MCO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, 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.