QQQ vs TPL Stock Comparison
QQQ currently leads TPL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between QQQ and TPL?
QQQ leads the current stock comparison as Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs Texas Pacific Land Corporation
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Texas Pacific Land Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over TPL, 57 versus 42 as of Oct 31, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. QQQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 15 points over 30 sessions. QQQ leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and Texas Pacific Land Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
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 TPL 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.
- Momentum46 vs 22QQQ +24
- Quality82 vs 66QQQ +16
- Value35 vs 24QQQ +11
- Risk Resilience69 vs 65QQQ +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +22
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QQQ's lead widened by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and TPL 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
QQQQQQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
QQQQQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
QQQQQQ on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | QQQ | TPL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +92.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 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 | 57 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QQQ | Value 35 vs 24 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 6.9% vs -17.4% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 69 vs 65 |
| 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 TPL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +15
- 57 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +4
- 50 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +20
- 67 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +7
- 55 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 15 when TPL 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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.88%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TPL
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.15%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.51%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.47%, AIQ +5 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.13%, 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.
- 1TPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2TPL'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.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
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 | TPL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 7.7% |
| Gross margin | — | 100.3% |
| Operating margin | — | 74.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 35.8% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.01 |
Performance
QQQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | TPL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.9% | 1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.2% | -15.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | -24.4% |
| Year to date | 18.1% | 15.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.6% | 7.2% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | TPL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.4 | 32.5 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 19 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.9% | -17.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 33.7% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | TPL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.59 | 0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.9 | 0.48 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -39.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.5% | -38.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 20% | 48.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQ or TPL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 57 against TPL's 42. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 TPL the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over TPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Momentum by 24 points; QQQ leads Quality by 16 points; QQQ leads Value by 11 points. QQQ leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by TPL simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, QQQ or TPL?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for QQQ and +92.7% for TPL. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, QQQ or TPL?
QQQ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QQQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 TPL?
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 TPL?
QQQ on the Momentum factor, by 24 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 TPL?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 TPL?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over TPL getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-15, when TPL moved ahead of QQQ.
What would change the QQQ vs TPL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; TPL'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; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about QQQ and TPL?
QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. TPL: 0 bullish / 3 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 TPL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
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.