FFIN vs INTC Stock Comparison
First Financial Bankshares, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
FFIN leads
FFIN leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FFIN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Financial Bankshares, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FFIN over INTC, 49 versus 33 as of Sep 5, 2026. FFIN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. FFIN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors INTC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FFIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Financial Bankshares, Inc. and Intel Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FFIN 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.
- Quality30%73 vs 39FFIN +34
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 30FFIN +33
- Value30%33 vs 30Even
- Momentum25%31 vs 33Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FFIN. FFIN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FFIN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FFIN and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FFIN (First Financial Bankshares, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 45.1% against 15.8%.
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
FFINFFIN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FFINFFIN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FFINFFIN on Risk Resilience, by 33 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 FFIN, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FFIN | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.7% | +7.6% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +135.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FFIN | 49 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | FFINon balance | revenue growth 3.1% vs 18.8%; TTM ROE 14% vs -10.8%; gross margin 73.1% vs 38.9% — FFIN takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 33 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -3.3% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day 2.9% vs 24.1% |
| Risk Resilience | FFIN | Risk Resilience 63 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 4.7% vs 7.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FFIN 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 FFIN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FFIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FFIN +16
- 49 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- FFIN +17
- 51 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- FFIN +17
- 58 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- FFIN +18
- 60 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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.78%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (37.24%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.65%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FFIN 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.3%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.51%, 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 Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIN's edge.
- 2INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FFIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
FFIN leads on balance| Metric | FFIN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 73.1% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 38% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 0.58 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FFIN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.9% | -8.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | -18% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10% | 99.5% |
| Year to date | 11.6% | 148.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -9.3% | 278.6% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | FFIN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.3 | 30.6 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.3% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.9% | 24.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.8% | 45.1% |
Risk
FFIN is the more resilient| Metric | FFIN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 2.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.42 | 2.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.58 | 3.79 |
| Max drawdown | -23.2% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.5% | -35% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.5% | 79.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FFIN or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FFIN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 49 against INTC's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 FFIN or INTC the better buy right now?
FFIN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 FFIN over INTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FFIN leads Quality by 34 points; FFIN leads Risk Resilience by 33 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FFIN or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +4.7% upside for FFIN and +7.6% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FFIN. 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, FFIN 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, FFIN or INTC?
FFIN 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, FFIN or INTC?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, FFIN or INTC?
FFIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FFIN on Risk Resilience, by 33 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FFIN more profitable than INTC?
FFIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 73.1% vs 38.9%; operating margin 38% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 14% vs -10.8%.
Is FFIN's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
FFIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FFIN vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIN's edge; INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FFIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FFIN and INTC?
FFIN: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. INTC: 2 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 FFIN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FFIN and INTC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.