EME vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare EME and INTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EME and INTC?
EME leads the current stock comparison as EMCOR Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
EMCOR Group, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
EME leads
EME leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 30 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EME, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
EMCOR Group, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EME over INTC, 59 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. EME's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. EME also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EME today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare EMCOR Group, 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 EME 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.
- Momentum30 vs 77INTC +47
- Risk Resilience69 vs 28EME +41
- Quality77 vs 39EME +38
- Value59 vs 30EME +29
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EME. EME’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; INTC keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
EME's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EME and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EME (EMCOR Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 58.9% against 36.4%.
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
EMEEME on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EMEEME on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EMEEME on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 47 points.
Lower downside
EMEEME on Risk Resilience, by 41 points.
Analyst upside
EMEEME 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 | EME | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.2% | -0.1% | EME has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.8% | +136.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EME. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EME | 59 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 11.4% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 30.8% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 38.4% vs -10.8%; gross margin 19.7% vs 38.9% |
| Valuation | EME | Value 59 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day -1.7% vs 33.4% |
| Risk Resilience | EME | Risk Resilience 69 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | EME | Target upside 33.2% vs -0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EME 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 EME.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EME +15
- 59 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- EME +18
- 53 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- EME +30
- 68 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- EME +21
- 54 vs 33
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.88%)
- 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
EME 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.32%, 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.
- 1INTC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge.
- 2INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate EME's advantage entirely.
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
Split| Metric | EME | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.4% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.8% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 19.7% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 10.2% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 38.4% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EME | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.9% | 11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.2% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 109.1% |
| Year to date | 22.3% | 171.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.4% | 309.8% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | EME | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.6 | 61.3 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.7% | 33.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.4% | 58.9% |
Risk
EME is the more resilient| Metric | EME | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.91 | 2.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.55 | 2.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 3.98 |
| Max drawdown | -28.7% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -20.7% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.1% | 79.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EME or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EME is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against INTC's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. INTC is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 EME or INTC the better buy right now?
EME carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 EME over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTC leads Momentum by 47 points; EME leads Risk Resilience by 41 points; EME leads Quality by 38 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EME or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +33.2% upside for EME and -0.1% for INTC, so the Street currently favors EME. 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, EME or INTC?
EME is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EME 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, EME or INTC?
EME 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, EME or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 47 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, EME or INTC?
EME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EME on Risk Resilience, by 41 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 EME more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 19.7% vs 38.9%; operating margin 10.2% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 38.4% 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.
Is EME's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EME 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 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge; INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate EME's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EME and INTC?
EME: 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 EME is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EME 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.