CDNA vs INTC Stock Comparison
CDNA currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 30. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CDNA and INTC?
CDNA leads the current stock comparison as CareDx, Inc, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CareDx, Inc vs Intel Corp.
CDNA leads
CDNA leads by 28 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CDNA, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CareDx, Inc
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CDNA over INTC, 58 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. CDNA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. CDNA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors INTC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CDNA today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CDNA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CareDx, Inc 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 CDNA 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.
- Quality92 vs 39CDNA +53
- Momentum67 vs 21CDNA +46
- Risk Resilience39 vs 29CDNA +10
- Value27 vs 30Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CDNA. CDNA’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.3%)
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CDNA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CDNA and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CDNA (CareDx, Inc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
CDNACDNA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CDNACDNA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CDNACDNA on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
CDNACDNA on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 CDNA, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CDNA | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -26.3% | +18.2% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +88.3% | +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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CDNA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CDNA | 58 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | CDNAon balance | revenue growth 12.1% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 42% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 32.8% vs -10.8%; gross margin 70.6% vs 38.9%; operating margin -0.9% vs 0.1% — CDNA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 27 vs 30 |
| Technicals | CDNA | Price vs 50-day 26.8% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day 119.6% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CDNA | Risk Resilience 39 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside -26.3% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CDNA and INTC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 28 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 CDNA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CDNA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CDNA +28
- 58 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- CDNA +28
- 58 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- CDNA +19
- 62 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CDNA +20
- 62 vs 42
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CDNA
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.3%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CDNA 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 +2.23%, 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 Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to CDNA's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CDNA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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
CDNA leads on balance| Metric | CDNA | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.1% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 70.6% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | -0.9% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32.8% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.58 |
Performance
CDNA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CDNA | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.8% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 22.5% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 83.2% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 233.8% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | 255.9% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 361.6% | 148.9% |
Technicals
CDNA has the stronger structure| Metric | CDNA | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.7 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 26.8% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 119.6% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 68.9% | 46.6% |
Risk
CDNA is the more resilient| Metric | CDNA | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.44 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 5.89 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -23.6% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 73.2% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CDNA or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CDNA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 CDNA or INTC the better buy right now?
CDNA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CDNA over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CDNA leads Quality by 53 points; CDNA leads Momentum by 46 points; CDNA leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CDNA or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply -26.3% upside for CDNA and +18.2% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CDNA. 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, CDNA or INTC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CDNA or INTC?
CDNA 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, CDNA or INTC?
CDNA on the Momentum factor, by 46 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, CDNA or INTC?
CDNA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CDNA on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 CDNA more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.6% vs 38.9%; operating margin -0.9% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 32.8% vs -10.8%. CDNA leads on two measures and INTC 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 CDNA's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
CDNA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 28 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CDNA vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to CDNA's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CDNA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 CDNA and INTC?
CDNA: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 CDNA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CDNA 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.