FISV vs INTA Stock Comparison
Fiserv, Inc. vs Intapp, Inc.
FISV leads
FISV leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FISV.
Fiserv, Inc.
Intapp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FISV over INTA, 58 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. FISV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while INTA holds the stronger quality profile. FISV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FISV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fiserv, Inc. and Intapp, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FISV and INTA 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.
- Value30%74 vs 50FISV +24
- Quality30%46 vs 59INTA +13
- Momentum25%59 vs 71INTA +12
- Risk Resilience15%49 vs 37FISV +12
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FISV. FISV’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; INTA keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: FISV moved ahead of INTA in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FISV and INTA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FISV (Fiserv, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
INTA (Intapp, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 37.8%.
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
FISVFISV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
INTAINTA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISVFISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
INTAINTA on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
FISVFISV on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
FISVFISV 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 | FISV | INTA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.6% | -13.1% | FISV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.2% | +57.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 3 | 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 FISV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 58 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | FISVon balance | revenue growth 5.3% vs 4.4%; EPS growth 9.3% vs 65%; TTM ROE 10.8% vs -10.8%; gross margin 47.2% vs 75.8%; operating margin 21.4% vs -6.9% — FISV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FISV | Value 74 vs 50 |
| Technicals | INTA | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs 22.6%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs 35% |
| Risk Resilience | FISV | Risk Resilience 49 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | FISV | Target upside 17.6% vs -13.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FISV and INTA 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 FISV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FISV +2
- 58 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- INTA +4
- 51 vs 55
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when FISV moved ahead of INTA.
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 / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.79%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
INTA 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 +0.51%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.25%, 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.
- 1INTA closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to FISV's edge.
- 2INTA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FISV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
FISV leads on balance| Metric | FISV | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 4.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.3% | 65% |
| Gross margin | 47.2% | 75.8% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% | -6.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.8% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.04 | 0.05 |
Performance
INTA leads 4 of 5 windows| Metric | FISV | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.1% | 10.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | 71.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16% | 50% |
| Year to date | -21.1% | -9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | -5.6% |
Technicals
INTA has the stronger structure| Metric | FISV | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 63 |
| ADX (14) | 7.8 | 42.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | 22.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | 35% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 47.7% |
Risk
FISV is the more resilient| Metric | FISV | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 0.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | 0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | 0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -32.5% | -59.9% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.3% | 58.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FISV or INTA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FISV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against INTA's 56. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. INTA is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 FISV or INTA the better buy right now?
FISV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FISV over INTA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FISV leads Value by 24 points; INTA leads Quality by 13 points; INTA leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FISV or INTA?
Analyst price targets imply +17.6% upside for FISV and -13.1% for INTA, so the Street currently favors FISV. 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, FISV or INTA?
FISV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, FISV or INTA?
INTA 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, FISV or INTA?
INTA on the Momentum factor, by 12 points. 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, FISV or INTA?
FISV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FISV on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 FISV more profitable than INTA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 47.2% vs 75.8%; operating margin 21.4% vs -6.9%; ttm roe 10.8% vs -10.8%. FISV leads on two measures and INTA 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 FISV's lead over INTA getting stronger or weaker?
FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when FISV moved ahead of INTA.
What would change the FISV vs INTA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTA closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to FISV's edge; INTA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FISV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 FISV and INTA?
FISV: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. INTA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 FISV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FISV and INTA 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.