QQQ vs MU Stock Comparison
Compare QQQ and MU across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQ and MU?
MU leads the current stock comparison as Micron Technology, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Micron Technology, Inc.
MU leads
MU leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support MU, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Micron Technology, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over QQQ, 71 versus 59 as of Sep 9, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MU today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Micron Technology, Inc. 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 QQQ and MU 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.
- Risk Resilience75 vs 39QQQ +36
- Momentum54 vs 79MU +25
- Value30 vs 51MU +21
- Quality83 vs 99MU +16
3 of 4 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-07, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-06.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MU's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and MU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MU (Micron Technology, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
MUMU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
MUMU on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 | QQQ | MU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +38.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +122.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 24 | 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 MU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MU | 59 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MU | Value 30 vs 51 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day 1% vs 6.6%; vs 200-day 9.3% vs 67.6% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 75 vs 39 |
| 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 QQQ and MU 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 28 – Sep 7MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +12
- 59 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +15
- 53 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +5
- 67 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +7
- 55 vs 62
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 6 when MU 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.
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
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (54.71%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
QQQ is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.08%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.61%, 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge.
- 2QQQ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | QQQ | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 73.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 104.4% |
| Gross margin | — | 72.6% |
| Operating margin | — | 65.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 70.5% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.06 |
Performance
MU leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | MU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | 9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | 15.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2% | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | 174.5% |
| Year to date | 17% | 256.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.1% | 756.3% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | MU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.1 | 50.7 |
| ADX (14) | 10.9 | 8.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | 6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.3% | 67.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.9% | 54.1% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 3.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 2.95 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 5.05 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -39.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.6% | -16.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 81.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or MU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 9, 2026, scoring 71 against QQQ's 59. 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 QQQ or MU the better buy right now?
MU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 9, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 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 MU over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; MU leads Momentum by 25 points; MU leads Value by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QQQ or MU?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for QQQ and +38.4% for MU. 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, QQQ or MU?
MU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, QQQ or MU?
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, QQQ or MU?
MU on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, QQQ or MU?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 QQQ more profitable than MU?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is MU's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-28 and 2026-09-07. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-06, when MU moved ahead of QQQ.
What would change the QQQ vs MU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge; QQQ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; MU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 QQQ and MU?
QQQ: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MU: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 QQQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MU it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.