QQQ vs SILV Stock Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs SILV
SILV leads
SILV leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support SILV, and its lead is widening.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SILV over QQQ, 76 versus 54 as of Sep 2, 2026. SILV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SILV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. SILV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and SILV 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.
- Risk Resilience15%74 vs 100SILV +26
- Value30%30 vs 49SILV +19
- Quality30%83 vs 92SILV +9
3 of 3 evidence groups favor SILV. SILV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
SILV's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and SILV 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
SILVSILV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
SILVSILV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SILVSILV on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SILV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SILV | 54 vs 76 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SILV | Value 30 vs 49 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | SILV | Risk Resilience 74 vs 100 |
| 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 SILV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 SILV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1SILV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SILV +22
- 54 vs 76
- 7 sessions ago
- SILV +17
- 59 vs 76
- 30 sessions ago
- SILV +13
- 63 vs 76
- 90 sessions ago
- SILV +22
- 54 vs 76
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.
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%)
No active signals
QQQ is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.15%, AIQ -6 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge.
- 2QQQ's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| Gross margin | — | 60.5% |
| Operating margin | — | 53.6% |
| Return on equity | — | 34.4% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QQQ | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.2 | — |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.9% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.2% | — |
Risk
SILV is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 1 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 1.5 | — |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | — |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or SILV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SILV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 76 against QQQ's 54. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 SILV the better buy right now?
SILV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SILV over QQQ?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SILV leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; SILV leads Value by 19 points; SILV leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QQQ or SILV?
SILV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SILV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 SILV?
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 SILV?
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 SILV?
SILV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SILV on Risk Resilience, by 26 points. 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 SILV?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is SILV's lead over QQQ getting stronger or weaker?
SILV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 22 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the QQQ vs SILV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQ closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge; QQQ's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about QQQ and SILV?
QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SILV: 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 SILV 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.