QQQ vs RGLD Stock Comparison
Compare QQQ and RGLD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQ and RGLD?
QQQ leads the current stock comparison as Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Royal Gold, Inc.
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Royal Gold, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over RGLD, 56 versus 55 as of Sep 11, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while RGLD holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Royal Gold, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison 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 RGLD 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 Resilience75 vs 60QQQ +15
- Quality83 vs 71QQQ +12
- Momentum45 vs 56RGLD +11
- Value30 vs 36RGLD +6
1 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; RGLD keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -13
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 RGLD 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.
RGLD (Royal Gold, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 42% against 13%.
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
RGLDRGLD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
RGLDRGLD on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | QQQ | RGLD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +21.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +14.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 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 | 56 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | RGLD | Value 30 vs 36 |
| Technicals | RGLD | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs 12.7%; vs 200-day 7.5% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 75 vs 60 |
| 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 RGLD 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)
- Only 1 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 QQQ.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +1
- 56 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 64 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 50 vs 48
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when QQQ moved ahead of RGLD.
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 (7.75%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.27%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.21%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.87%, AIQ -5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.67%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1RGLD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2RGLD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | QQQ | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | -4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -16% |
| Gross margin | — | 66.8% |
| Operating margin | — | 63.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 11.5% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.05 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | QQQ | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | 9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | 28.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.6% | -7.9% |
| Year to date | 15.4% | 14.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.4% | 36.2% |
Technicals
RGLD has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.1 | 51.4 |
| ADX (14) | 9.8 | 36.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | 12.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.5% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13% | 42% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 1.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -38.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5% | -16.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 41.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or RGLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against RGLD's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. RGLD 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 QQQ or RGLD the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over RGLD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; QQQ leads Quality by 12 points; RGLD leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QQQ or RGLD?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for QQQ and +21.4% for RGLD. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, QQQ or RGLD?
RGLD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RGLD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 RGLD?
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 RGLD?
RGLD on the Momentum factor, by 11 points. 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 RGLD?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 RGLD?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over RGLD getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when QQQ moved ahead of RGLD.
What would change the QQQ vs RGLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RGLD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; RGLD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 RGLD?
QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RGLD: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 RGLD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
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.