QQQ vs SLV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and SLV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while SLV is iShares Silver Trust. QQQ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SLV ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 51.
| Metric | QQQ | SLV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.5% |
| Holdings | 107 | 1 |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 17,030,003 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | +6.4% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | -19.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +18.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 63% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -52.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -52.4% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 0.49 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 33/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 68/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs iShares Silver Trust
SLV leads
SLV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support SLV, and the lead recently changed hands.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
iShares Silver Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLV over QQQ, 57 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. SLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. SLV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SLV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. SLV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SLV now leads by 6.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and iShares Silver Trust across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQ vs SLV: 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 | SLV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.5% | QQQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -52.4% | QQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 63% | QQQ |
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 SLV 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.
- Momentum21 vs 33SLV +12
- Quality82 vs 72QQQ +10
- Risk Resilience72 vs 68QQQ +4
1 of 3 evidence groups favor SLV. SLV’s edge is concentrated in 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
SLV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and SLV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SLV (iShares Silver Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals.
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 | SLV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.5% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 107 | 1 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 17,030,003 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 63% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -52.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.44 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.95 | 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
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SLV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SLV | 51 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -9.1%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs -20.1% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 72 vs 68 |
| 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 SLV 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 SLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SLV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SLV now leads by 6.
- Today
- SLV +6
- 51 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +3
- 57 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +10
- 65 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +1
- 67 vs 66
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when SLV moved ahead of QQQ.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only SLV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.52%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.27%, AIQ +2 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 Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLV's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SLV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | SLV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -100% |
| Gross margin | — | 0% |
| Operating margin | — | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 0% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Performance
QQQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | SLV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -14.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | -23.9% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | -19.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 6.4% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SLV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 40.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 22.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | -20.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 38.9% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | SLV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 1.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 0.49 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -52.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -50.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 63% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.5% for SLV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SLV has been more volatile over the past year, at 63% annualized against 19.9% for QQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35.1% against -52.4% for SLV.
Compare QQQ and SLV 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.