CWAN vs INTC Stock Comparison
CWAN currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 30. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between CWAN and INTC?
CWAN leads the current stock comparison as Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
CWAN leads
CWAN leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CWAN, and its lead is widening.
Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CWAN over INTC, 50 versus 30 as of Oct 22, 2026. CWAN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. CWAN 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 CWAN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. CWAN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Clearwater Analytics Holdings, 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 CWAN 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 Resilience74 vs 29CWAN +45
- Quality53 vs 39CWAN +14
- Value36 vs 30CWAN +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CWAN. CWAN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CWAN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CWAN and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CWAN (Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 4.4%.
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
CWANCWAN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CWANCWAN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CWANCWAN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CWANCWAN on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 CWAN, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CWAN | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | 0% | +25.7% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +115.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 23 | 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 CWAN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CWAN | 50 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | CWANon balance | revenue growth 1.7% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 76.5% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE -2.4% vs -10.8%; gross margin 66% vs 38.9%; operating margin -0.7% vs 0.1% — CWAN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CWAN | Value 36 vs 30 |
| Technicals | CWAN | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day 10.2% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CWAN | Risk Resilience 74 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 0% vs 25.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CWAN 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 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)
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 CWAN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CWAN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CWAN +20
- 50 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- CWAN +20
- 50 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- CWAN +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CWAN +8
- 50 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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.88%)
- 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
INTC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CWAN's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CWAN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
CWAN leads on balance| Metric | CWAN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.7% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 76.5% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 66% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | -0.7% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -2.4% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.42 | 0.58 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CWAN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.8% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.9% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.4% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | 1.8% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | 148.9% |
Technicals
CWAN has the stronger structure| Metric | CWAN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.5 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.2% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.4% | 46.6% |
Risk
CWAN is the more resilient| Metric | CWAN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.44 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.1 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CWAN or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CWAN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 50 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 CWAN or INTC the better buy right now?
CWAN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 CWAN over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CWAN leads Risk Resilience by 45 points; CWAN leads Quality by 14 points; CWAN leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CWAN or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply 0% upside for CWAN and +25.7% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CWAN. 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, CWAN or INTC?
CWAN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CWAN 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, CWAN or INTC?
CWAN 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, CWAN or INTC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CWAN or INTC?
CWAN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CWAN on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 CWAN more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66% vs 38.9%; operating margin -0.7% vs 0.1%; ttm roe -2.4% vs -10.8%. CWAN 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 CWAN's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
CWAN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 20 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 CWAN 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 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CWAN's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CWAN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CWAN and INTC?
CWAN: No active signals. 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. On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CWAN 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.