QQQ vs XDTE ETF Comparison
Compare QQQ and XDTE across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQ and XDTE?
QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while XDTE is Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF. QQQ is tied to Equity; XDTE is tied to Equity. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 53 positions versus 4 for XDTE. XDTE is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | QQQ | XDTE | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.97% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $485.9B | $339M | Fund |
| Holdings | 53 | 4 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 35% | 99.8% | Fund |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 29,282 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +26.1% | - | Performance |
| YTD return | +17% | - | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 13.9% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -19.6% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.94 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | -1.07 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | -1.23 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 50/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 54/100 | - | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 92/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support QQQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over XDTE, 59 versus 50 as of Sep 9, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while XDTE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs 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 XDTE 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.
- Quality83 vs 42QQQ +41
- Risk Resilience75 vs 92XDTE +17
- Value30 vs 38XDTE +8
1 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in quality; XDTE 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.
Largest factor move: Quality +7
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and XDTE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
XDTE (Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
QQQQQQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XDTEXDTE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
XDTEXDTE on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 | XDTE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.97% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $485.9B | $339M | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 103 | 6 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 29,282 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 13.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -19.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | -1.07 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.94 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QQQ and XDTE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
XDTE is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 99.85% of the fund, against 35% for QQQ (4 holdings vs 53). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
53 holdings are unique to QQQ and 4 to XDTE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or XDTE?
QQQ currently has more reported holdings, with 53 positions versus 4.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
QQQ currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 59 to 50.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 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 | QQQ | 59 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XDTE | Value 30 vs 38 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | XDTE | Risk Resilience 75 vs 92 |
| 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 XDTE 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 1 of 3 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 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
No active signals
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.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.54%, 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.
- 1XDTE closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2XDTE generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
Split across windows| Metric | QQQ | XDTE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | — |
| Year to date | 17% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.1% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QQQ | XDTE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.1 | — |
| ADX (14) | 10.9 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.3% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.9% | — |
Risk
XDTE is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | XDTE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | -1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | -1.23 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -19.6% |
| Current drawdown | -3.6% | -13.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 13.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or XDTE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 9, 2026, scoring 59 against XDTE's 50. The edge comes from quality. XDTE 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 XDTE the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 9, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over XDTE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Quality by 41 points; XDTE leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; XDTE leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QQQ or XDTE?
XDTE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XDTE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 XDTE?
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 XDTE?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 XDTE?
XDTE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XDTE on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 XDTE?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What would change the QQQ vs XDTE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XDTE closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; XDTE generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 XDTE?
QQQ: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. XDTE: No active signals. 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).
Compare QQQ and XDTE with others
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.