QQQ vs SMCY ETF Comparison
Compare QQQ and SMCY across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQ and SMCY?
QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while SMCY is YieldMax SMCI Option Income Strategy ETF. QQQ is tied to Equity; SMCY is tied to Alternatives. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 53 positions versus 0 for SMCY. QQQ has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | QQQ | SMCY | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 1.01% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $481.7B | $164M | Fund |
| Holdings | 53 | 0 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.3% | - | Fund |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 0 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Alternatives | Fund |
| 1Y return | +22.4% | -64.3% | Performance |
| YTD return | +15.4% | -36.9% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 76.6% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -77% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.42 | 3.16 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | -1.05 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | -1.28 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 39/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 2/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 45/100 | 53/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 4/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs YieldMax SMCI Option Income Strategy ETF
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support QQQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
YieldMax SMCI Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over SMCY, 56 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while SMCY holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and YieldMax SMCI Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs 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 SMCY 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 4QQQ +71
- Quality83 vs 45QQQ +38
- Momentum45 vs 53SMCY +8
3 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; SMCY 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 -4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, 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 SMCY 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.
SMCY (YieldMax SMCI Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 44.9% 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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
SMCYSMCY on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 71 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | SMCY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 1.01% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $481.7B | $164M | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 103 | 0 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 0 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 76.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -77% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | -1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.42 | 3.16 | 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.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or SMCY?
QQQ currently has more reported holdings, with 53 positions versus 0.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SMCY has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQ has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
QQQ currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 56 to 39.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 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 | QQQ | 56 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs 10.1%; vs 200-day 7.5% vs -23.3% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 75 vs 4 |
| 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 SMCY 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 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +17
- 56 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +20
- 59 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +19
- 64 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +20
- 50 vs 30
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 (7.75%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.27%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (35.11%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.93%)
- 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +6.26%, 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.
- 1SMCY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 71 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2SMCY'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.
Performance
QQQ leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | SMCY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | -3.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | -6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | -1.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.6% | -34.1% |
| Year to date | 15.4% | -36.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.4% | -64.3% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | SMCY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.1 | 47.3 |
| ADX (14) | 9.8 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | 10.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.5% | -23.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13% | 44.9% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | SMCY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 3.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | -1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | -1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -77% |
| Current drawdown | -5% | -71.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 76.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -6.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or SMCY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against SMCY's 39. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. SMCY 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 SMCY the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 QQQ over SMCY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 71 points; QQQ leads Quality by 38 points; SMCY leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QQQ or SMCY?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 SMCY?
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 SMCY?
SMCY on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 SMCY?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 71 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 SMCY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over SMCY getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the QQQ vs SMCY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SMCY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 71 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; SMCY'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 SMCY?
QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SMCY: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 SMCY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare QQQ and SMCY 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.