NOBL vs QQQ ETF Comparison
Compare NOBL and QQQ across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between NOBL and QQQ?
NOBL is ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. NOBL is tied to Equity; QQQ is tied to Equity. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 102 positions versus 69 for NOBL. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | NOBL | QQQ | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.18% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $11.8B | $485.9B | Fund |
| Holdings | 69 | 102 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 65.5% | 152.9% | Fund |
| Average volume | 746,337 | 48,821,168 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +11.1% | +26.1% | Performance |
| YTD return | +10.9% | +17% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 19.7% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -12.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.28 | 1.43 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 1.04 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 1.55 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 7/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 59/100 | 54/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 75/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over NOBL, 59 versus 56 as of Sep 6, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while NOBL holds the stronger value profile. QQQ also shows the stronger 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 3 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs 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 NOBL 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.
- Quality30%59 vs 83QQQ +24
- Value30%42 vs 30NOBL +12
- Momentum25%59 vs 54NOBL +5
- Risk Resilience15%74 vs 75Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality; NOBL keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
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 — NOBL 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.
NOBL (ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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
NOBLNOBL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
NOBLNOBL on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
NOBLNOBL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | NOBL | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $11.8B | $485.9B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 69 | 103 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 746,337 | 48,821,168 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 19.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 1.04 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.28 | 1.43 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
NOBL and QQQ share 15.83% of their weighted exposure across 7 common holdings.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 152.9% of the fund, against 65.48% for NOBL (102 holdings vs 69). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
62 holdings are unique to NOBL and 95 to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | NOBL | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| WMTWALMART INC | 5.55% | 9.14% | 5.55% |
| PEPPEPSICO INC | 5.74% | 3.29% | 3.29% |
| ADPAUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING | 6.46% | 1.94% | 1.94% |
| LINLINDE PLC | 2.66% | 1.93% | 1.93% |
| CTASCINTAS CORP | 5.64% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| FASTFASTENAL CO | 6.2% | 1% | 1% |
| ROPROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC | 6.85% | 0.72% | 0.72% |
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, NOBL or QQQ?
QQQ currently has more reported holdings, with 102 positions versus 69.
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?
QQQ has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NOBL 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, 59 to 56.
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 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | NOBL | Value 42 vs 30 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day 5.1% vs 9.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 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 NOBL 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 3 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 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 24 – Sep 5QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +5
- 55 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +9
- 58 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- NOBL +5
- 61 vs 56
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when QQQ moved ahead of NOBL.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.92%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.12%)
- 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 -0.62%, 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.
- 1NOBL closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2NOBL's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-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.
Performance
QQQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NOBL | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.8% | 2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.6% | 19.9% |
| Year to date | 10.9% | 17% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.1% | 26.1% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | NOBL | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.1 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.4 | 10.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.1% | 9.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9% | 12.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | NOBL | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.28 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -3.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NOBL or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 59 against NOBL's 56. The edge comes from quality. NOBL 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 NOBL or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over NOBL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QQQ leads Quality by 24 points; NOBL leads Value by 12 points; NOBL leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, NOBL or QQQ?
NOBL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NOBL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, NOBL 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, NOBL or QQQ?
NOBL on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, NOBL or QQQ?
NOBL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NOBL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is NOBL more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over NOBL getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when QQQ moved ahead of NOBL.
What would change the NOBL vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NOBL closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; NOBL's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NOBL and QQQ?
NOBL: 4 bullish / 1 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 NOBL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QQQ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NOBL 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.