CMS vs INTC Stock Comparison
CMS currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 33. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between CMS and INTC?
CMS leads the current stock comparison as CMS Energy Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CMS Energy Corporation vs Intel Corp.
CMS leads
CMS leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CMS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CMS Energy Corporation
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CMS over INTC, 52 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. CMS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. CMS 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 CMS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CMS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CMS Energy Corporation 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 CMS 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.
- Momentum68 vs 34CMS +34
- Value52 vs 30CMS +22
- Risk Resilience50 vs 28CMS +22
- Quality41 vs 39Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CMS. CMS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CMS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMS and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CMS (CMS Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 52.8% against 19.5%.
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
CMSCMS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CMSCMS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CMSCMS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
CMSCMS on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
CMSCMS on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 CMS, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CMS | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +76.7% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.8% | +107.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 25 | 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 CMS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CMS | 52 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | CMSon balance | revenue growth -33% vs 18.8%; EPS growth -65.5% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 11% vs -10.8%; gross margin 69.7% vs 38.9% — CMS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CMS | Value 52 vs 30 |
| Technicals | CMS | Price vs 50-day 5% vs -35.3%; vs 200-day -6% vs 10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CMS | Risk Resilience 50 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 11.3% vs 76.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMS 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 19 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 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 CMS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CMS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CMS +19
- 52 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- CMS +23
- 54 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- CMS +5
- 45 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- CMS +11
- 43 vs 32
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when CMS 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only CMS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.67%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.44%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.58%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CMS 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.83%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -28.58%, AIQ +1 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMS's edge.
- 2INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CMS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
CMS leads on balance| Metric | CMS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -33% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -65.5% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 69.7% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 18.9% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CMS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.1% | -20.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.6% | 4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.7% | 6.3% |
| Year to date | -2.5% | 158.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.7% | 149.6% |
Technicals
CMS has the stronger structure| Metric | CMS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.9 | 36.1 |
| ADX (14) | 33.4 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | -35.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6% | 10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 52.8% |
Risk
CMS is the more resilient| Metric | CMS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.17 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.56 | 1.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.86 | 2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -21.7% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -32.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.6% | 77.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMS or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CMS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against INTC's 33. The edge comes from momentum 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 CMS or INTC the better buy right now?
CMS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 CMS over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CMS leads Momentum by 34 points; CMS leads Value by 22 points; CMS leads Risk Resilience by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMS or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for CMS and +76.7% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CMS. 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, CMS or INTC?
CMS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CMS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, CMS or INTC?
CMS 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, CMS or INTC?
CMS on the Momentum factor, by 34 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, CMS or INTC?
CMS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CMS on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 CMS more profitable than INTC?
CMS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 69.7% vs 38.9%; operating margin 18.9% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 11% vs -10.8%.
Is CMS's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
CMS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when CMS moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the CMS 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMS's edge; INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CMS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 CMS and INTC?
CMS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. INTC: 1 bullish / 1 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 CMS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CMS 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.