ABT vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare ABT and INTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ABT and INTC?
ABT leads the current stock comparison as Abbott Laboratories, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Abbott Laboratories vs Intel Corp.
ABT leads
ABT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ABT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Abbott Laboratories
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ABT over INTC, 45 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. ABT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. ABT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ABT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ABT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Abbott Laboratories and Intel Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison 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 ABT and INTC 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.
- Momentum20 vs 77INTC +57
- Risk Resilience57 vs 28ABT +29
- Quality57 vs 39ABT +18
- Value48 vs 30ABT +18
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ABT. ABT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; INTC 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 -14
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
ABT's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABT and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ABT (Abbott Laboratories): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 58.9% against 22.6%.
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
ABTABT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ABTABT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ABTABT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 57 points.
Lower downside
ABTABT on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
ABTABT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ABT | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.1% | -0.1% | ABT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.4% | +136.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ABT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 45 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | ABTon balance | revenue growth 12.8% vs 18.8%; EPS growth -14.5% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 10.5% vs -10.8%; gross margin 56.8% vs 38.9% — ABT takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ABT | Value 48 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -3% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs 33.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ABT | Risk Resilience 57 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | ABT | Target upside 18.1% vs -0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABT and INTC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 ABT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ABT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ABT +1
- 45 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- ABT +18
- 53 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- ABT +22
- 60 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- ABT +25
- 58 vs 33
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 / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.83%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ABT 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.36%, AIQ -4 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.61%, 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.
- 1INTC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABT's edge.
- 2INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3ABT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 21 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate ABT'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
ABT leads on balance| Metric | ABT | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.8% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -14.5% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 56.8% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 17% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.5% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ABT | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | 11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.8% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.9% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.2% | 109.1% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | 171.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -21.8% | 309.8% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | ABT | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.9 | 61.3 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | 33.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 58.9% |
Risk
ABT is the more resilient| Metric | ABT | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.04 | 2.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | 2.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.33 | 3.98 |
| Max drawdown | -39.6% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -24.3% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.1% | 79.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABT or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ABT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 45 against INTC's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. INTC 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 ABT or INTC the better buy right now?
ABT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ABT over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTC leads Momentum by 57 points; ABT leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; ABT leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABT or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +18.1% upside for ABT and -0.1% for INTC, so the Street currently favors ABT. 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, ABT or INTC?
ABT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ABT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, ABT or INTC?
ABT on combined revenue and EPS growth. 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, ABT or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 57 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, ABT or INTC?
ABT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ABT on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 ABT more profitable than INTC?
ABT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.8% vs 38.9%; operating margin 17% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 10.5% vs -10.8%.
Is ABT's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
ABT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 1 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 ABT vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABT's edge; INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; ABT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 21 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate ABT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ABT and INTC?
ABT: 2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. INTC: 4 bullish / 0 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 ABT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ABT and INTC 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.