NQ vs ES: Correlation, Beta and Which Index to Trade
The $50 point makes ES look like the bigger contract; the daily range makes NQ the bigger bet. How the two E-minis compare once points become dollars, why a 0.9 correlation means holding both is one position, where their intraday behavior differs, and the three answers to "which one".
The E-mini S&P 500 (ES) pays $50 per index point and the E-mini Nasdaq-100 (NQ) pays $20, so a first-year trader concludes that NQ is the smaller contract. Then a normal Tuesday moves ES 50 points and NQ 250, and the arithmetic reverses: $2,500 of range on ES against $5,000 on NQ. The NQ vs ES question is mostly that arithmetic, plus one correlation number and a few behavioral differences that show up in the data. The tick and point values for all four contracts are in the futures pillar; this post is about choosing between the two indexes.
The specs, side by side
| ES | NQ | MES | MNQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Underlying index | S&P 500 | Nasdaq-100 | S&P 500 | Nasdaq-100 |
| Tick size | 0.25 pt | 0.25 pt | 0.25 pt | 0.25 pt |
| Tick value | $12.50 | $5.00 | $1.25 | $0.50 |
| Point value | $50 | $20 | $5 | $2 |
| Points in a typical day (late 2025, 14-day ATR) | ~54 | ~264 | same as ES | same as NQ |
| Dollars in a typical day, one contract | ~$2,700 | ~$5,300 | ~$270 | ~$530 |
Tick and point values are contract specifications and do not change. The range rows are illustrative and dated: the 14-day average true range (ATR, the average size of a daily bar) was about 54 points on ES and 264 on NQ in a December 2025 comparison, and both numbers move with the volatility regime. The ADR post explains how to read your own ATR off the chart; the point here is the ratio. NQ covers four to five times the points and pays 40% as much per point, so a day on NQ is worth roughly twice a day on ES in dollars per contract. A longer sample gives a smaller gap: one measurement of average full-session range from 2011 through May 2025 came to about $2,750 on NQ against $1,815 on ES, a factor of 1.5. The ratio drifts, the direction does not.
Points are not dollars, and dollars are not risk
The number that decides a stop is the range, not the multiplier. Take a stop at one fifth of the daily ATR, which is close to the typical adverse excursion an initial-balance breakout suffers on either contract. On the late-2025 numbers that is about 11 points on ES, or $540 per contract, and 53 points on NQ, or $1,056. Same idea, same fraction of the day's range, twice the dollars.
On the micros the same stop is $54 and $106, which is where the sizing rule does its work: on a 25K evaluation with a $1,000 max loss limit, that one MES stop is about 5% of the drawdown and the MNQ stop about 11%. A trader who moved from ES to NQ "because the point is cheaper" and kept the contract count has doubled the risk without noticing, and the margin post covers why the margin requirement never warns you about it.
Correlation: one bet, twice
ES and NQ are not two markets. Measured on daily close-to-close returns over ten years or more, their correlation sits between 0.87 and 0.95 depending on the window, and it rises in a sell-off, when everything trades as one risk asset. Holding a long NQ and a long ES is one position with two commission bills, and holding a long NQ against a short ES is a bet on the Nasdaq-100's relative performance, which is a different trade from the one most day traders think they are making.
The word for the size of NQ's move relative to ES is beta. In percentage terms NQ moves about 1.3 to 1.5 times as much as ES over the same day, because the Nasdaq-100 is concentrated in a handful of large technology names and reacts harder to rates, earnings and anything that touches growth stocks. That is also where the correlation breaks intraday: on a tech-specific headline, NQ can move 100 points while ES barely notices, and for an hour the 0.9 is closer to 0.5.
Where the behavior differs
Correlation describes direction. Intraday structure differs more than the correlation suggests, and the initial-balance dataset from the opening range post shows it. Across 2015 to 2025, ES broke both sides of its first-hour range on 28.7% of days against 22.6% for NQ, and ES extended a full first-hour range beyond the break more often (18.8% up versus 12.8% on NQ). NQ was more likely to set the day's high or low inside the first hour and then hold it. Read together: ES tests both edges and grinds; NQ picks a side earlier and then runs or stalls.
Liquidity is the other structural difference. ES trades two to three times NQ's daily volume with a far deeper book at each price, so a market order on ES usually fills at the touch and a market order on NQ can take a tick or two of slippage on a normal day and more around the open. Per contract that costs $5 to $10 on NQ; per idea, it is the price of trading the thinner book.
Which one
Three answers exist, and each is right for someone.
ES, for traders who want the deepest book, the smallest slippage, fewer points of noise around a level, and the ability to trade size without moving the market. Its cost is that a good day on ES pays about half a good day on NQ per contract, so the same income needs more contracts and more margin.
NQ, for traders whose method needs range: breakouts, trend continuation, anything that pays by the point. Its costs are the thinner book, the larger dollar stop for the same fraction of the day, and a beta that makes news days rougher.
Micros of either, for anyone on an evaluation or an account under a few thousand dollars of drawdown, where the choice between MES and MNQ can be made on behavior alone because the dollar difference is small enough to size around.
I trade NQ and MNQ and nothing else, and the reason is not the range but the level: my setups are reversals at prices where a lot of participants remember something, and on NQ those levels get tested with enough movement inside my European window to pay for the stop. ES in the same hours often does not travel far enough from a level to make the trade worth its slippage. That is a fact about my hours and my setup, not about the contracts, which is why the three answers above come before it.