CRWV vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare CRWV vs INTC on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between CRWV and INTC?
CRWV and INTC are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock vs Intel Corp.
CRWV and INTC are effectively level
CRWV and INTC are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CRWV and INTC as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock 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 CRWV 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.
- Value53 vs 30CRWV +23
- Risk Resilience10 vs 29INTC +19
- Quality30 vs 39INTC +9
- Momentum16 vs 21INTC +5
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRWV and INTC both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
CRWVCRWV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRWVCRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
INTCINTC on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
CRWVCRWV 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 | CRWV | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +130.4% | +18.2% | CRWV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +123.6% | +122.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 30 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | CRWVon balance | revenue growth 23.9% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 18.6% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE -45.4% vs -10.8%; gross margin 67.4% vs 38.9% — CRWV takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRWV | Value 53 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -28.1% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -32.7% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | INTC | Risk Resilience 10 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | CRWV | Target upside 130.4% vs 18.2% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20INTC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 30 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- CRWV +1
- 31 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- INTC +9
- 34 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CRWV +6
- 48 vs 42
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when CRWV 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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CRWV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.43%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.88%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 -0.5%, 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).
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
CRWV leads on balance| Metric | CRWV | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23.9% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.6% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 67.4% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | -3% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -45.4% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 10.27 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CRWV | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -20.2% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -28.4% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.8% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -46% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | -13.2% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -56.1% | 148.9% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | CRWV | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.8 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -28.1% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -32.7% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 83.7% | 46.6% |
Risk
INTC is the more resilient| Metric | CRWV | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.5 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.39 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.7 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -56.5% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -55.6% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 96.3% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.3% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, CRWV or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +130.4% upside for CRWV and +18.2% for INTC, so the Street currently favors CRWV. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CRWV or INTC?
CRWV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, CRWV or INTC?
CRWV 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, CRWV or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, CRWV or INTC?
INTC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. INTC on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 CRWV more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.4% vs 38.9%; operating margin -3% vs 0.1%; ttm roe -45.4% 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.
What do the current signals say about CRWV and INTC?
CRWV: 1 bullish / 5 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 CRWV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRWV 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.