CHRW vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare CHRW and INTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHRW and INTC?
CHRW leads the current stock comparison as C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
CHRW leads
CHRW leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CHRW, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHRW over INTC, 55 versus 35 as of Sep 6, 2026. CHRW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. CHRW also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHRW today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 20 points over 30 sessions. CHRW 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 C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 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 CHRW 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.
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 29CHRW +32
- Value30%59 vs 30CHRW +29
- Quality30%52 vs 39CHRW +13
- Momentum25%52 vs 40CHRW +12
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CHRW. CHRW’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CHRW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHRW and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHRW (C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 27.8%.
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
CHRWCHRW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CHRWCHRW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHRWCHRW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
CHRWCHRW on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
CHRWCHRW on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
CHRWCHRW 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 | CHRW | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +35% | +7.4% | CHRW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73.3% | +136.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHRW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHRW | 55 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | CHRWon balance | revenue growth 23% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 28.5% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 36% vs -10.8%; gross margin 10.1% vs 38.9% — CHRW takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CHRW | Value 59 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -12.2% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -14.5% vs 29.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CHRW | Risk Resilience 61 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | CHRW | Target upside 35% vs 7.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHRW 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 20 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 CHRW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHRW +20
- 55 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- CHRW +22
- 56 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- CHRW +5
- 46 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- CHRW +18
- 58 vs 40
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.70%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.34%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CHRW 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 +0.65%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.51%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge.
- 2INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CHRW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
CHRW leads on balance| Metric | CHRW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 28.5% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 10.1% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 4.9% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.21 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CHRW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | 7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19.8% | -3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17.8% | 120.6% |
| Year to date | -8.2% | 159.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.6% | 299.2% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | CHRW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.4 | 37.6 |
| ADX (14) | 35.8 | 14.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.2% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.5% | 29.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 47.7% |
Risk
CHRW is the more resilient| Metric | CHRW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 2.91 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | 2.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.55 | 3.84 |
| Max drawdown | -32.4% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -29.5% | -32% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.4% | 79.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHRW or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHRW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 55 against INTC's 35. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 CHRW or INTC the better buy right now?
CHRW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 CHRW over INTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CHRW leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; CHRW leads Value by 29 points; CHRW leads Quality by 13 points. CHRW 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, CHRW or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +35% upside for CHRW and +7.4% for INTC, so the Street currently favors CHRW. 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, CHRW or INTC?
CHRW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHRW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, CHRW or INTC?
CHRW 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, CHRW or INTC?
CHRW on the Momentum factor, by 12 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, CHRW or INTC?
CHRW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHRW on Risk Resilience, by 32 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CHRW more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 10.1% vs 38.9%; operating margin 4.9% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 36% 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 CHRW's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 20 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CHRW 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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge; INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CHRW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CHRW and INTC?
CHRW: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. INTC: 2 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 CHRW is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CHRW and INTC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.