FIS vs INTC Stock Comparison
FIS currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 30. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between FIS and INTC?
FIS leads the current stock comparison as Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
FIS leads
FIS leads by 30 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FIS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FIS over INTC, 60 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. FIS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. FIS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FIS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. FIS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 30 points over 30 sessions. FIS leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Fidelity National Information Services, 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 FIS 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.
- Value75 vs 30FIS +45
- Momentum60 vs 21FIS +39
- Risk Resilience49 vs 29FIS +20
- Quality49 vs 39FIS +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FIS. FIS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
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; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FIS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIS and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FIS (Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 27.4%.
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
FISFIS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FISFIS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISFIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 points.
Momentum
FISFIS on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
FISFIS on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
FISFIS 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 | FIS | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.7% | +18.2% | FIS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55% | +122.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 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 FIS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FIS | 60 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 2.5% vs 18.8%; EPS growth -90.2% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs -10.8%; gross margin 37.1% vs 38.9% |
| Valuation | FIS | Value 75 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -18.8% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FIS | Risk Resilience 49 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | FIS | Target upside 29.7% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FIS 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 30 points. (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)
- 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 FIS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FIS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 30 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FIS +30
- 60 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- FIS +26
- 56 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- FIS +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FIS +7
- 49 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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FIS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.91%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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
FIS 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 -0.03%, AIQ 0 points).
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 Value gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to FIS's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FIS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 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
Split| Metric | FIS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -90.2% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 37.1% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 16.4% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.32 | 0.58 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FIS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.2% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.1% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.6% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | -45.2% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -44.6% | 148.9% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | FIS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.1 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.8% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.4% | 46.6% |
Risk
FIS is the more resilient| Metric | FIS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.31 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.76 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.37 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -52.3% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -46.4% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.6% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIS or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FIS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 FIS or INTC the better buy right now?
FIS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 FIS over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FIS leads Value by 45 points; FIS leads Momentum by 39 points; FIS leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. FIS leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by INTC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, FIS or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +29.7% upside for FIS and +18.2% for INTC, so the Street currently favors FIS. 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, FIS or INTC?
FIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 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, FIS or INTC?
FIS 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, FIS or INTC?
FIS on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, FIS or INTC?
FIS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FIS on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 FIS more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 37.1% vs 38.9%; operating margin 16.4% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 22.6% 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 FIS's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
FIS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 30 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 FIS 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 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to FIS's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; FIS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; 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 FIS and INTC?
FIS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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. The most decision-relevant rule on FIS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FIS 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.