QQQ vs USO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and USO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while USO is United States Oil Fund, LP. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 25 for USO. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USO ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 51.
What is the main difference between QQQ and USO?
QQQ holds 107 positions to USO's 25.
| Metric | QQQ | USO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.86% |
| Holdings | 107 | 25 |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 5,838,190 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | +135.5% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | +132% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +22.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 49.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -32.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -36.2% |
| Beta | 1.45 | -1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 3.04 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 65/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 82/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 23/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs United States Oil Fund, LP
USO leads
USO leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support USO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
United States Oil Fund, LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USO over QQQ, 65 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. USO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. USO lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USO now leads by 14.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and United States Oil Fund, LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs USO: 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 | USO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.86% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 25 | QQQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -36.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 49.6% | 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 USO 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.
- Momentum21 vs 82USO +61
- Risk Resilience72 vs 23QQQ +49
- Quality82 vs 72QQQ +10
2 of 3 evidence groups favor USO. USO’s edge is concentrated in momentum; QQQ keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
USO's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and USO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USO (United States Oil Fund, LP): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | QQQ | USO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +57.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | USO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.86% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 25 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 5,838,190 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 49.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -32.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | -1.55 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | USO | 51 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | USO | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 10.8%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 33.6% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 72 vs 23 |
| 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 USO 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 USO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20USO lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USO now leads by 14.
- Today
- USO +14
- 51 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- USO +4
- 57 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +14
- 65 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +9
- 67 vs 58
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when USO 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only USO
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
USO 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.5%, 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 61 points behind, the largest single contributor to USO's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3USO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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.
Performance
USO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | USO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | 4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | 11.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | 22% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | 25.2% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | 132% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 135.5% |
Technicals
USO has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | USO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 73.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 25.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 10.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 33.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 34.7% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | USO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | -1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 3.04 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -0.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 49.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and USO?
QQQ holds 107 positions to USO's 25.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or USO?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 25 for USO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.86% for USO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
USO has been more volatile over the past year, at 49.6% annualized against 19.9% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -35.1% for QQQ and -36.2% for USO.
Compare QQQ and USO 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.