EPAM vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare EPAM and INTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EPAM and INTC?
EPAM leads the current stock comparison as EPAM Systems, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
EPAM Systems, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
EPAM leads
EPAM leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EPAM, and its lead is narrowing.
EPAM Systems, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EPAM over INTC, 64 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. EPAM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. EPAM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EPAM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. EPAM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare EPAM Systems, 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 EPAM 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.
- Value74 vs 30EPAM +44
- Risk Resilience60 vs 28EPAM +32
- Quality53 vs 39EPAM +14
- Momentum66 vs 77INTC +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EPAM. EPAM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
EPAM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EPAM and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EPAM (EPAM Systems, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 58.9% against 36.8%.
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
EPAMEPAM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EPAMEPAM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EPAMEPAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
EPAMEPAM on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
EPAMEPAM 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 | EPAM | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.8% | -0.1% | EPAM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +93.1% | +136.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 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 EPAM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EPAM | 64 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 1.1% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 28.8% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 11.2% vs -10.8%; gross margin 28.3% vs 38.9% |
| Valuation | EPAM | Value 74 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 17.3% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day -16.6% vs 33.4% |
| Risk Resilience | EPAM | Risk Resilience 60 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | EPAM | Target upside 4.8% vs -0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EPAM 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 wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 EPAM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EPAM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EPAM +20
- 64 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- EPAM +31
- 66 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- EPAM +23
- 61 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- EPAM +24
- 57 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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (36.57%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.19%)
- 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
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 +2.96%, AIQ 0 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 Value gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPAM'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.
- 3EPAM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 20-point move would eliminate EPAM'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 | EPAM | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.1% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 28.8% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 28.3% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 10.3% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EPAM | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | 11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.2% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.1% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19.3% | 109.1% |
| Year to date | -44.1% | 171.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.4% | 309.8% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | EPAM | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.7 | 61.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 17.3% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.6% | 33.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.8% | 58.9% |
Risk
EPAM is the more resilient| Metric | EPAM | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 2.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | 2.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.6 | 3.98 |
| Max drawdown | -65.7% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -48.3% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 51.3% | 79.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EPAM or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EPAM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 64 against INTC's 44. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 EPAM or INTC the better buy right now?
EPAM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EPAM over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EPAM leads Value by 44 points; EPAM leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; EPAM leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EPAM or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +4.8% upside for EPAM and -0.1% for INTC, so the Street currently favors EPAM. 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, EPAM or INTC?
EPAM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EPAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 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, EPAM or INTC?
EPAM 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, EPAM or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, EPAM or INTC?
EPAM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EPAM on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 EPAM more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.3% vs 38.9%; operating margin 10.3% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 11.2% 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 EPAM's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
EPAM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 20 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 EPAM vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Value gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPAM'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; EPAM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 20-point move would eliminate EPAM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EPAM and INTC?
EPAM: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. INTC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on EPAM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EPAM 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.