Quick answer
For outright futures, MES is $5 per S&P 500 index point and $1.25 per 0.25-point tick. MNQ is $2 per Nasdaq-100 point and $0.50 per 0.25-point tick. A smaller tick value does not guarantee a smaller trade loss: stop distance, quantity and costs determine the planned dollar risk.
A practical workflow
- Step 1
Choose the market and invalidation first
Compare the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 setups on their own charts. Do not impose the same point stop merely to make the tick values comparable.
- Step 2
Convert each stop to money
Multiply the stop distance in points by the contract point value. Keep the unit labels beside each number.
- Step 3
Include costs before rounding
Add estimated round-trip commission, fees and slippage per contract, then divide the chosen risk budget by that complete amount and round down.
- Step 4
Check collateral and the record
Verify current margin and broker rules separately. After execution, record actual fills and costs instead of treating the planned stop as the realized result.
At a glance
| Outright contract property | MES | MNQ |
|---|---|---|
| Underlying benchmark | S&P 500 | Nasdaq-100 |
| Dollar value per index point | $5 per contract | $2 per contract |
| Minimum outright tick | 0.25 point | 0.25 point |
| Dollar value per tick | $1.25 | $0.50 |
| Illustrative five-point stop, before costs | $25 per contract | $10 per contract |
Different valid stops can reverse the apparent risk ranking
Consider two invented setups: MES needs an eight-point stop and MNQ needs a thirty-point stop. Price risk is 8 × $5 = $40 for one MES, versus 30 × $2 = $60 for one MNQ. The smaller MNQ tick has not made this particular plan smaller in dollars.
The comparison is deliberately about two different stop distances. Neither number is a recommended stop or a claim about typical volatility. Derive invalidation from the actual chart and account for a stop filling beyond its intended level.
Whole contracts and costs change the executable quantity
Suppose the chosen risk budget is $100 and the illustrative combined round-trip cost/slippage allowance is $3 per contract for either setup. The complete planning risk is $43 per MES or $63 per MNQ. Rounding down gives two MES contracts at $86 planned risk, or one MNQ at $63. Without the cost allowance, the first calculation could tempt a user to divide by only the price risk.
Costs here are an assumption, not a broker quote. If you use the existing futures position-size calculator, its risk-per-contract output is before costs. Reserve a cost buffer separately and verify the whole quantity against the complete budget; do not describe that output as fee-inclusive.
Margin, minimum tick and calendar-spread conventions
The table describes outright futures. Calendar spreads and options can have different increments. Use the exchange specification for the exact product and order you intend to trade.
Margin is collateral, not maximum loss or the amount at risk at a stop. Current exchange and broker requirements can change. A quantity that fits the planning risk may still be unavailable under your collateral, account or provider rules.
Choose the tool by the missing unit
If you know points but need ticks, use the tick converter. If you know the stop and account budget but need whole contracts, use position sizing. If you know entry, exit and fees, use the futures P/L tool. A journal then tells you whether actual outcomes resembled those assumptions.
Avoid comparing equal contract counts, equal margin or equal tick values as substitutes for equal dollar risk. A useful review preserves each instrument’s actual invalidation rather than modifying the chart to fit a desired number of contracts.
Common questions
Is MNQ always less risky than MES?
No. Dollar risk depends on the actual stop distance, contract count, costs and execution. A lower tick value alone does not settle that comparison.
How many ticks are in five points?
For these outright contracts, 5 / 0.25 = 20 ticks. At one contract that is $25 for MES or $10 for MNQ before costs.
Can I assume the same stop for both?
No. Their charts and price scales differ. Set invalidation from each actual setup, then compare money risk.
Platform references
Educational decision support. Chart analysis cannot guarantee a result, and all prices, contract values, and execution conditions require independent verification.