QQQ vs SCHA Stock Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
QQQ and SCHA are effectively level
QQQ and SCHA are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate QQQ and SCHA as of Sep 2, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Value30%30 vs 51SCHA +21
- Quality30%83 vs 63QQQ +20
- Risk Resilience15%74 vs 77Even
- Momentum25%35 vs 33Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 -8
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
QQQ's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and SCHA both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
SCHASCHA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 54 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHA | Value 30 vs 51 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day 7.9% vs 6.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 54 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHA +2
- 59 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 63 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHA +9
- 54 vs 63
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when QQQ moved ahead of SCHA.
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%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.37%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
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 +0.13%, AIQ -6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.26%, AIQ -2 points).
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
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.2 | 31.6 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 16.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.9% | 6.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.2% | 14.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QQQ | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 1.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1 | 1 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.5 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -9.6% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -6.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 19% |
| 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 value, QQQ or SCHA?
SCHA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SCHA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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 SCHA?
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 SCHA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 SCHA?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ 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 QQQ more profitable than SCHA?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about QQQ and SCHA?
QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SCHA: 2 bullish / 2 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 SCHA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QQQ and SCHA 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.