QQQ vs VYM ETF Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VYM leads
VYM leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VYM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VYM over QQQ, 57 versus 54 as of Sep 2, 2026. VYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. VYM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. VYM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
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.
- Quality30%83 vs 65QQQ +18
- Value30%30 vs 48VYM +18
- Momentum25%35 vs 44VYM +9
- Risk Resilience15%74 vs 83VYM +9
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VYM. VYM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality 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
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
The lead changed hands: VYM moved ahead of QQQ in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and VYM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VYM (Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 13.2% against 6.4%.
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
VYMVYM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VYMVYM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
VYMVYM on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
VYMVYM on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | VYM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $489.0B | $99.2B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 103 | 589 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 1,523,045 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 10.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.00 | 1.23 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.58 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QQQ and VYM share 21.82% of their weighted exposure across 26 common holdings.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 75.32% of the fund, against 36.33% for VYM (102 holdings vs 604). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
76 holdings are unique to QQQ and 578 to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QQQ | VYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.79% | 7.36% | 2.79% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 2.08% | 2.04% | 2.04% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.91% | 1.86% | 1.86% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc | 2.04% | 1.56% | 1.56% |
| PEPPepsiCo Inc | 1.68% | 1.55% | 1.55% |
| ADIAnalog Devices Inc | 1.55% | 1.46% | 1.46% |
| GILDGilead Sciences Inc | 1.59% | 1.31% | 1.31% |
| QCOMQUALCOMM Inc | 1.58% | 1.27% | 1.27% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM. 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 | 54 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VYM | Value 30 vs 48 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day 7.9% vs 6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | VYM | Risk Resilience 74 vs 83 |
| 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 VYM 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 VYM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1VYM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VYM +3
- 54 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VYM +3
- 63 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- VYM +7
- 54 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when VYM 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%)
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.57%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
VYM 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.6%, 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 Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge.
- 2QQQ's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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.
Technicals
Split| Metric | QQQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.2 | 24.4 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 16.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.9% | 6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.2% | 6.4% |
Risk
VYM is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1 | 1.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.5 | 1.89 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -2.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 10.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or VYM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VYM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 57 against QQQ's 54. The edge comes from value and momentum. QQQ is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 VYM the better buy right now?
VYM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VYM over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QQQ leads Quality by 18 points; VYM leads Value by 18 points; VYM leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QQQ or VYM?
VYM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VYM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 VYM?
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 VYM?
VYM on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 VYM?
VYM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VYM on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 VYM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VYM's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
VYM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when VYM moved ahead of QQQ.
What would change the QQQ vs VYM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQ closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge; QQQ's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 VYM?
QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VYM: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 VYM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QQQ and VYM 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.