Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NASDAQ
$717.93
▲ $1.01 (+0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/18 06:39 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$715.08 - $719.54
52-Week Range
$555.60 - $748.65
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+21.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/17 factors positiveRisk: Medium
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.3% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
MACD
MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
The **QQQ** stock exhibits a **moderate overall score of 58**, reflecting a mixed but cautiously optimistic outlook driven by technical strength and quality fundamentals, tempered by growth stagnation and recent underperformance. On the technical front, the stock holds above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, signaling bullish momentum, though the negative MACD histogram and slight underperformance relative to the index (-1.4% over three months) introduce caution. Fundamentally, the absence of debt (debt/equity: 0.00) underscores financial stability, but the lack of additional metrics in growth and valuation (P/E: 30.7) suggests limited upside potential or valuation justification. News sentiment is relatively positive, with crypto-related and tech-specific developments offsetting broader market concerns, yet the absence of transformative growth narratives keeps the score grounded. Quality remains solid due to debt-free balance sheets, while risk metrics—including moderate volatility (ATR: 1.3%) and a historically high return-to-drawdown ratio (Calmar: 1.04)—highlight resilience amid cyclical downturns. The interplay of these factors results in a balanced but cautious assessment, where technical and quality strengths are partially offset by growth and valuation ambiguities.
The stock trades above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, indicating sustained bullish momentum, but the negative MACD histogram signals weakening momentum, while RSI (54.8) remains in a healthy positive range.
Short-term price positioning is strong, but momentum trends are critical for sustaining upward momentum.
The only fundamental metric provided is a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.00, indicating no leverage, but no other financial health or profitability data is available.
Leverage-free balance sheets are a strength, but the lack of additional metrics limits deeper fundamental insights.
No growth-related metrics (e.g., revenue, earnings growth, or sector trends) are provided, leaving this category unscored beyond a neutral baseline.
Growth potential is unclear without quantitative or qualitative data on expansion or innovation.
The P/E ratio stands at 30.7, which is elevated relative to historical averages for the Nasdaq-100 index, suggesting potential overvaluation.
A high P/E ratio may indicate investors are pricing in future growth, but it also signals a premium that could be risky if earnings fail to materialize.
News sentiment is mixed, with tech-specific positives (e.g., crypto-related gains) and broader market negatives (e.g., rate hike fears), but no major disruptive news dominates.
Sentiment shifts can influence short-term volatility, but the lack of transformative news keeps the score from rising significantly.
The absence of debt (debt/equity: 0.00) is a key quality indicator, reflecting strong financial discipline and risk management.
Debt-free operations enhance stability but do not address operational efficiency or competitive positioning.
The ATR (1.3%) suggests moderate volatility, while the Calmar ratio (1.04) indicates a historically high return relative to drawdowns, implying resilience during downturns.
Volatility and drawdown resilience are critical for risk-adjusted performance, especially in cyclical or interest-rate-sensitive environments.
StockIQ conclusion
The **QQQ** stock presents a **moderate profile** with notable strengths in technical positioning and financial quality, offset by concerns over valuation and growth ambiguity. While the absence of debt and stable momentum above key moving averages provide a solid foundation, the negative MACD histogram and underperformance relative to the index introduce caution. Elevated valuation metrics and lack of growth data further temper optimism, leaving the stock in a neutral but cautiously optimistic stance. Investors should monitor macroeconomic trends, sector-specific catalysts, and technical momentum shifts to assess future trajectory.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
58
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
50
Quality
55
Value
50
Momentum
59
Risk
64
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
54
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage on **Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ)** has primarily focused on its performance amid broader market volatility, particularly its slight uptick while broader U.S. equities dipped. The fund is also highlighted in comparisons with its lower-fee counterpart, **QQQM**, emphasizing cost differences for investors. Beyond that, coverage is sparse, with most headlines centering on Nasdaq-100-related trends rather than QQQ-specific developments. No new company-specific news beyond fee structure discussions or minor price movements is evident.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. News trend score: 86. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
51
Fundamentals
54
Technical
59
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-3%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
+7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior reflects traders’ fixation on the 2.1% resistance level, a classic psychological barrier where price action may stall or reverse. While FOMO and euphoria scores are low-to-moderate, the narrative-reality gap (8 points) suggests traders may overestimate tailwinds relative to fundamentals. The absence of panic or herding implies discipline, but the open question is whether the resistance holds or if traders break free—potentially triggering a re-evaluation of the anchor. Volatility remains subdued, reducing urgency to act decisively.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:58 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"QQQ vs QQQM: Same Index, Same Stocks, Different Fee – and the Math Says One Leaves You Thousands Richer"
"ValuEngine Weekly Commentary: Advancing Nuclear Energy And Evaluating Its Current Place Within Dynamic Asset Strategies"
"The U.S. Information Sector Payroll Slump May Not Be What You Thought"
"Exchange-Traded Funds Mixed, US Equities Fall After Midday"
📈 13D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Graham's documented principles, the model estimates that the lack of balance‑sheet data prevents a concrete valuation, resulting in a neutral 100 score and a similar limitation for Bagehot and Lynch. In contrast, Smith’s long‑term buy‑and‑hold framework yields a strong endorsement, while Housel’s patient‑compounder lens assigns a high 95, reflecting confidence in quiet growth. More cycle‑aware or risk‑focused thinkers such as Loeb, Mackay, and Marks issue moderate scores (81‑56) that note capital preservation, emerging crowd excitement, and potentially high expectations. Market‑efficiency and trend‑following views from Malkiel & Bogle and Livermore turn more skeptical, giving 40 and 39 as the evidence for out‑performance appears weak and the trend negative. Finally, Schwager’s disciplined trading criteria find no viable setup, resulting in the lowest score of 19 and a recommendation to stay out.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 10%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 94
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 80
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 62
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 40
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 37
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 32
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 21
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 3 bearish · 2 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$661.14
Range Bottom
$734.58
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
—
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
—
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.00
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Not enough data to compute signals.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 22.6.2026 | $0.813 |
| 21.6.2026 | $0.813 |
| 23.3.2026 | $0.733 |
| 22.3.2026 | $0.733 |
| 22.12.2025 | $0.794 |
| 21.12.2025 | $0.794 |
| 22.9.2025 | $0.694 |
| 21.9.2025 | $0.694 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.591 |
| 22.6.2025 | $0.591 |
| 24.3.2025 | $0.716 |
| 23.3.2025 | $0.716 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 6 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
QQQ currently scores 58/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
QQQ's technical score is 59/100, which currently reads as neutral — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 1.3% of price; Debt/equity: 0.00; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -2.6% over the last 3 months relative to the index; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — QQQ has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
65,651,778 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 73,194,861 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.5% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology