QQQ vs SCHO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and SCHO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while SCHO is Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF. SCHO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 51.
| Metric | QQQ | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 107 | 97 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 3.84% |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 4,559,758 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | -2.3% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | -2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 1.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -2.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -5.4% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -3.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | -3.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 48/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF
SCHO leads
SCHO leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SCHO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHO over QQQ, 64 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. SCHO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. SCHO lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SCHO now leads by 13.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs SCHO: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | QQQ | SCHO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | SCHO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 97 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 3.84% | SCHO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -5.4% | SCHO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 1.7% | SCHO |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare QQQ and SCHO 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.
- Value35 vs 73SCHO +38
- Momentum21 vs 48SCHO +27
- Quality82 vs 66QQQ +16
- Risk Resilience72 vs 72Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHO. SCHO’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
SCHO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and SCHO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHO (Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 1.4%.
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 | SCHO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 97 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 4,559,758 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 1.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -2.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -3.57 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.03 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHO | 51 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHO | Value 35 vs 73 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs -1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 72 vs 72 |
| 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 SCHO 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 SCHO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SCHO lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SCHO now leads by 13.
- Today
- SCHO +13
- 51 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHO +7
- 57 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +7
- 65 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 67 vs 67
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when QQQ moved ahead of SCHO.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.50%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.82%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.14%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.2%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
SCHO 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.04%, 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 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHO's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SCHO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -0.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | -1.5% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | -2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | -2.3% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 57.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 29.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | -1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 1.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QQQ | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -3.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | -3.96 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -2.6% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 1.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -0.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or SCHO?
They hold a similar number of positions: 107 for QQQ and 97 for SCHO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SCHO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.84% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.9% annualized against 1.7% for SCHO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -5.4% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare QQQ and SCHO with others
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.