NTAP vs QQQ Stock Comparison
NTAP currently leads QQQ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum, while QQQ has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between NTAP and QQQ?
NTAP leads the current stock comparison as NetApp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NetApp, Inc. vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
NTAP leads
NTAP leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support NTAP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NetApp, Inc.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NTAP over QQQ, 58 versus 50 as of Oct 24, 2026. NTAP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger risk resilience profile. NTAP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor NTAP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NTAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare NetApp, 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 NTAP 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.
- Momentum49 vs 15NTAP +34
- Risk Resilience42 vs 69QQQ +27
- Value61 vs 36NTAP +25
- Quality70 vs 82QQQ +12
3 of 4 evidence groups favor NTAP. NTAP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
NTAP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NTAP and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NTAP (NetApp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.
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
NTAPNTAP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
NTAPNTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
NTAPNTAP on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 | NTAP | QQQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.3% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +72.7% | — | 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor NTAP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NTAP | 58 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | NTAP | Value 61 vs 36 |
| Technicals | NTAP | Price vs 50-day 5.9% vs -3%; vs 200-day 46.3% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 42 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 NTAP 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 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 NTAP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23NTAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NTAP +8
- 58 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- NTAP +6
- 63 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- NTAP +1
- 68 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- NTAP +5
- 64 vs 59
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when QQQ moved ahead of NTAP.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NTAP
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.15%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NTAP 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.4%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.01%, AIQ +1 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTAP's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3NTAP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 | NTAP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 21.3% | — |
| Gross margin | 70.7% | — |
| Operating margin | 24.1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 114.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 2.02 | — |
Performance
NTAP leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | NTAP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.7% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.1% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.9% | 3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 98.2% | 6.1% |
| Year to date | 101.2% | 14.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 81% | 15.2% |
Technicals
NTAP has the stronger structure| Metric | NTAP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.9 | 24 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.9% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 46.3% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.2% | 18.4% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | NTAP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.33 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.49 | 0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.57 | 1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -21.2% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -9.9% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.5% | 20.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NTAP or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NTAP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 24, 2026, scoring 58 against QQQ's 50. The edge comes from momentum and value. QQQ is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 NTAP or QQQ the better buy right now?
NTAP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 24, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NTAP over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NTAP leads Momentum by 34 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; NTAP leads Value by 25 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NTAP or QQQ?
Analyst price targets imply -4.3% upside for NTAP 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, NTAP or QQQ?
NTAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, NTAP 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, NTAP or QQQ?
NTAP on the Momentum factor, by 34 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, NTAP or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 NTAP more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is NTAP's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
NTAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-23. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-21, when QQQ moved ahead of NTAP.
What would change the NTAP 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTAP's edge; QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; NTAP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 NTAP and QQQ?
NTAP: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. QQQ: 2 bullish / 2 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 NTAP 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.