ECL vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare ECL and INTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ECL and INTC?
INTC leads the current stock comparison as Intel Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ecolab Inc. vs Intel Corp.
INTC leads
INTC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ECL. Wall Street currently favors ECL on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support INTC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Ecolab Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INTC over ECL, 44 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. INTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while ECL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. INTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ECL. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. INTC lead: Reversed — ECL led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; INTC now leads by 4.
Compare Ecolab 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 ECL 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.
- Momentum22 vs 77INTC +55
- Risk Resilience68 vs 28ECL +40
- Quality51 vs 39ECL +12
- Value30 vs 30Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor INTC. INTC’s edge is concentrated in momentum; ECL keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
INTC's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ECL and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INTC (Intel Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
ECL (Ecolab Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
INTCINTC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ECLECL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 55 points.
Lower downside
ECLECL on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
ECLECL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors INTC, analyst targets favor ECL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ECL | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.8% | -0.1% | ECL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.3% | +136.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INTC | 40 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | ECLon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 24.8% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 21.4% vs -10.8%; gross margin 44.1% vs 38.9% — ECL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 30 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day -0.5% vs 33.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ECL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | ECL | Target upside 16.8% vs -0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ECL and INTC and are excluded from the count.
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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 INTC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10INTC lead: Reversed — ECL led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; INTC now leads by 4.
- Today
- INTC +4
- 40 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- ECL +15
- 50 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- ECL +13
- 51 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- ECL +21
- 54 vs 33
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when INTC moved ahead of ECL.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.96%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ECL 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.69%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.61%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1ECL closes the Momentum gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge.
- 2ECL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3INTC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
ECL leads on balance| Metric | ECL | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.8% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 44.1% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 17.4% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.4% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ECL | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | 11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.5% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.7% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | 109.1% |
| Year to date | 3.5% | 171.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.4% | 309.8% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | ECL | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.8 | 61.3 |
| ADX (14) | 16.3 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.5% | 33.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.6% | 58.9% |
Risk
ECL is the more resilient| Metric | ECL | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.47 | 2.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.05 | 2.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.08 | 3.98 |
| Max drawdown | -20.3% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -11.9% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 79.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ECL or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INTC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against ECL's 40. The edge comes from momentum. ECL is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 ECL or INTC the better buy right now?
INTC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor INTC over ECL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTC leads Momentum by 55 points; ECL leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; ECL leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ECL or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +16.8% upside for ECL and -0.1% for INTC, so the Street currently favors ECL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors INTC. 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, ECL 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, ECL or INTC?
ECL 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, ECL or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 55 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, ECL or INTC?
ECL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ECL on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 ECL more profitable than INTC?
ECL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.1% vs 38.9%; operating margin 17.4% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 21.4% vs -10.8%.
Is INTC's lead over ECL getting stronger or weaker?
INTC lead: Reversed — ECL led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; INTC now leads by 4. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when INTC moved ahead of ECL.
What would change the ECL vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ECL closes the Momentum gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge; ECL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; INTC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 ECL and INTC?
ECL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. INTC: 4 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 ECL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ECL 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.