NSA vs QQQ Stock Comparison
Compare NSA and QQQ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NSA 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
National Storage Affiliates Trust vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ.
National Storage Affiliates Trust
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over NSA, 56 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while NSA holds the stronger value profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree.
Compare National Storage Affiliates Trust 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 NSA 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.
- Quality23 vs 83QQQ +60
- Risk Resilience43 vs 75QQQ +32
- Value59 vs 30NSA +29
2 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; NSA keeps a meaningful value edge.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
NSA (National Storage Affiliates Trust): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 24.5% against 13%.
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
NSANSA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 | NSA | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.9% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +11.4% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | 41 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | NSA | Value 59 vs 30 |
| Technicals | NSA | Price vs 50-day -1.3% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 20.2% vs 7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 43 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 NSA 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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.
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.
- 1NSA closes the Quality gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2NSA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3QQQ starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | NSA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -33.3% | — |
| Gross margin | 33.9% | — |
| Operating margin | 37.6% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 3.77 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | NSA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 28.4% | 16.6% |
| Year to date | 53.9% | 15.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.3% | 22.4% |
Technicals
NSA has the stronger structure| Metric | NSA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.1 | 48.1 |
| ADX (14) | 12.7 | 9.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.3% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20.2% | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.5% | 13% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NSA or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against NSA's 41. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. NSA 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 NSA or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 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 NSA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Quality by 60 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; NSA leads Value by 29 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NSA or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply +0.9% upside for NSA 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, NSA or QQQ?
NSA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NSA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, NSA 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, NSA or QQQ?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, NSA or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 NSA more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What would change the NSA vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NSA closes the Quality gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; NSA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; QQQ starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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.
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.