QQQ vs NOW Stock Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs ServiceNow, Inc.
NOW leads
NOW leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support NOW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
ServiceNow, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOW over QQQ, 58 versus 54 as of Sep 2, 2026. NOW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger risk resilience profile. NOW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor NOW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. NOW lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOW now leads by 4.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and ServiceNow, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%35 vs 82NOW +47
- Risk Resilience15%74 vs 41QQQ +33
- Quality30%83 vs 64QQQ +19
- Value30%30 vs 42NOW +12
3 of 4 evidence groups favor NOW. NOW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
Largest factor move: Momentum -24
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: NOW moved ahead of QQQ in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and NOW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NOW (ServiceNow, 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
NOWNOW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
NOWNOW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
NOWNOW on the Momentum factor, by 47 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 33 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 | NOW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +2.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +115.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 23 | 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 NOW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NOW | 54 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | NOW | Value 30 vs 42 |
| Technicals | NOW | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 19.8%; vs 200-day 7.9% vs 20.1% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 74 vs 41 |
| 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 NOW 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 NOW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1NOW lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOW now leads by 4.
- Today
- NOW +4
- 54 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 59 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +4
- 63 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +11
- 54 vs 43
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when NOW 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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.37%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.44%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.26%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.59%)
NOW 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 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.23%, AIQ -6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -4.32%, 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 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOW's edge.
- 2QQQ's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3NOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | NOW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 5.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -35.6% |
| Gross margin | — | 74.8% |
| Operating margin | — | 11.4% |
| Return on equity | — | 13.8% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.68 |
Technicals
NOW has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | NOW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.2 | 66.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 25.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 19.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.9% | 20.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.2% | 58.1% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | NOW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1 | -0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.5 | -0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -56.8% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -25.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 56.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or NOW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NOW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 58 against QQQ's 54. 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 NOW the better buy right now?
NOW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NOW over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. NOW leads Momentum by 47 points; QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 33 points; QQQ leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QQQ or NOW?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for QQQ and +2.8% for NOW. 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 NOW?
NOW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NOW 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, QQQ or NOW?
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 NOW?
NOW on the Momentum factor, by 47 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, QQQ or NOW?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 33 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is QQQ more profitable than NOW?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is NOW's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
NOW lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOW now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when NOW moved ahead of QQQ.
What would change the QQQ vs NOW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOW's edge; QQQ's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; NOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about QQQ and NOW?
QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NOW: 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 QQQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NOW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare QQQ and NOW 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.