QQQM vs IWM ETF Comparison
Compare QQQM and IWM across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQM and IWM?
QQQM is Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF, while IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF. QQQM is tied to Equity; IWM is tied to Equity. IWM is broader by holdings count, with 1,950 positions versus 103 for QQQM. QQQM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | QQQM | IWM | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.19% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $104.7B | $79.9B | Fund |
| Holdings | 103 | 1,950 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 76% | 6% | Fund |
| Average volume | 3,073,400 | 35,289,965 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 19.6% | 18.8% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -11.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.42 | 1.20 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.08 | 1.13 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.61 | 1.92 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 58/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 7/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 32/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 75/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
IWM leads
IWM leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support IWM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWM over QQQM, 58 versus 55 as of Sep 5, 2026. IWM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while QQQM holds the stronger momentum profile. IWM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. IWM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare QQQM and IWM 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.
- Momentum25%53 vs 32QQQM +21
- Value30%32 vs 52IWM +20
- Quality30%69 vs 76IWM +7
- Risk Resilience15%74 vs 75Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor IWM. IWM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; QQQM keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
IWM's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQM and IWM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
IWMIWM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IWMIWM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
QQQMQQQM on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
IWMIWM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | QQQM | IWM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.19% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $104.7B | $79.9B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 104 | 1,961 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,073,400 | 35,289,965 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.6% | 18.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -11.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.08 | 1.13 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.42 | 1.20 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QQQM and IWM share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
QQQM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 75.96% of the fund, against 5.96% for IWM (103 holdings vs 1950). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
103 holdings are unique to QQQM and 1950 to IWM. 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, QQQM or IWM?
IWM currently has more reported holdings, with 1,950 positions versus 103.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQM 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?
QQQM has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWM has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
IWM currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 58 to 55.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWM. 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 | 55 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWM | Value 32 vs 52 |
| Technicals | QQQM | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 9.2% vs 8.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 75 |
| 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 QQQM and IWM 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 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 IWM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3IWM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWM +3
- 55 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- IWM +4
- 55 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- IWM +9
- 59 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- IWM +13
- 55 vs 68
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 (8.21%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.07%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.13%)
IWM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, AIQ +6 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.28%, 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.
- 1QQQM closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWM's edge.
- 2QQQM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3IWM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate IWM'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.
Technicals
QQQM has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQM | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.3 | 34 |
| ADX (14) | 11.1 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.2% | 8.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.5% | 12.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QQQM | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 1.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.08 | 1.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.61 | 1.92 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -11.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -3.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.6% | 18.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQM or IWM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IWM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against QQQM's 55. The edge comes from value and quality. QQQM is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 QQQM or IWM the better buy right now?
IWM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 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 IWM over QQQM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QQQM leads Momentum by 21 points; IWM leads Value by 20 points; IWM leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QQQM or IWM?
IWM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IWM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, QQQM or IWM?
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, QQQM or IWM?
QQQM on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, QQQM or IWM?
IWM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is QQQM more profitable than IWM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IWM's lead over QQQM getting stronger or weaker?
IWM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the QQQM vs IWM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQM closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWM's edge; QQQM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; IWM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate IWM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about QQQM and IWM?
QQQM: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWM: 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 QQQM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IWM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QQQM and IWM 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.