CCEP vs INTC Stock Comparison
CCEP currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 30. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between CCEP and INTC?
CCEP leads the current stock comparison as Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC vs Intel Corp.
CCEP leads
CCEP leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CCEP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCEP over INTC, 54 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. CCEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. CCEP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors INTC. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCEP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. CCEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 24 points over 30 sessions. CCEP 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 Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC and Intel Corp. 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 CCEP 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.
- Momentum83 vs 21CCEP +62
- Risk Resilience54 vs 29CCEP +25
- Quality49 vs 39CCEP +10
- Value36 vs 30CCEP +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CCEP. CCEP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CCEP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCEP and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCEP (Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 20.7%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
CCEPCCEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CCEPCCEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCEPCCEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
CCEPCCEP on the Momentum factor, by 62 points.
Lower downside
CCEPCCEP on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
INTCINTC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CCEP, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCEP | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.4% | +18.2% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.7% | +122.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCEP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CCEP | 54 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | CCEPon balance | EPS growth -4.4% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 24.8% vs -10.8%; gross margin 35.6% vs 38.9% — CCEP takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCEP | Value 36 vs 30 |
| Technicals | CCEP | Price vs 50-day 4.8% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day 13.8% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CCEP | Risk Resilience 54 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 0.4% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCEP and INTC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 CCEP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CCEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CCEP +24
- 54 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- CCEP +24
- 54 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- CCEP +2
- 45 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CCEP +3
- 45 vs 42
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 5 when CCEP moved ahead of INTC.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only CCEP
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.29%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
CCEP 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.75%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.39%, AIQ 0 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 Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCEP's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CCEP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
CCEP leads on balance| Metric | CCEP | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.9% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.4% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 35.6% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.8% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.47 | 0.58 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CCEP | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.6% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.8% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.1% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 18.3% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | 23.1% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | 148.9% |
Technicals
CCEP has the stronger structure| Metric | CCEP | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.9 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 24.4 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.8% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.8% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.7% | 46.6% |
Risk
CCEP is the more resilient| Metric | CCEP | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.14 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.48 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -19.1% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.1% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCEP or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCEP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 54 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 CCEP or INTC the better buy right now?
CCEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CCEP over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCEP leads Momentum by 62 points; CCEP leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; CCEP leads Quality by 10 points. CCEP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by INTC 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, CCEP or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +0.4% upside for CCEP and +18.2% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CCEP. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CCEP or INTC?
CCEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, CCEP or INTC?
CCEP 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, CCEP or INTC?
CCEP on the Momentum factor, by 62 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, CCEP or INTC?
CCEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CCEP on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 CCEP more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.6% vs 38.9%; operating margin 13.5% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 24.8% vs -10.8%. Each name leads on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is CCEP's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
CCEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-05, when CCEP moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the CCEP vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCEP's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CCEP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CCEP and INTC?
CCEP: 6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 CCEP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCEP 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.