QQQ vs SIVR: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and SIVR are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while SIVR is abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQ ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 50.
| Metric | QQQ | SIVR |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.3% |
| Holdings | 107 | 1 |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 1,394,611 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | +6.7% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | -18.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +18.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 62.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -52.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -52.4% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 0.49 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 33/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 46/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over SIVR, 51 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while SIVR holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs SIVR: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | QQQ | SIVR | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.3% | QQQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -52.4% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 62.9% | QQQ |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
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 QQQ and SIVR 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 Resilience72 vs 46QQQ +26
- Quality82 vs 67QQQ +15
- Momentum21 vs 33SIVR +12
2 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; SIVR keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and SIVR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
SIVR (abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 39% against 15.4%.
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 | QQQ | SIVR | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.3% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 1 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 1,394,611 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 62.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -52.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.44 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.95 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 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 | 51 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -9.1%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs -20% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 72 vs 46 |
| 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 SIVR 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 1 points. (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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +1
- 51 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +10
- 57 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +18
- 65 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 67 vs 65
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when QQQ moved ahead of SIVR.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.50%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only SIVR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.44%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1SIVR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2SIVR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 17 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-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 | QQQ | SIVR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -14.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | -23.8% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | -18.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 6.7% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SIVR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 40.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 22.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | -20% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 39% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | SIVR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 0.49 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -52.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -50.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 62.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.3% for SIVR.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SIVR has been more volatile over the past year, at 62.9% annualized against 19.9% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35.1% against -52.4% for SIVR.
Compare QQQ and SIVR with others
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.