FISV vs INTC Stock Comparison
Fiserv, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
FISV leads
FISV leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FISV, and its lead is widening.
Fiserv, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FISV over INTC, 58 versus 35 as of Sep 5, 2026. FISV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. FISV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FISV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. FISV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 23 points over 30 sessions. FISV 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 Fiserv, Inc. and Intel Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FISV 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.
- Value30%74 vs 30FISV +44
- Risk Resilience15%49 vs 29FISV +20
- Momentum25%59 vs 40FISV +19
- Quality30%46 vs 39FISV +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FISV. FISV’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
FISV's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FISV and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FISV (Fiserv, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on 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
FISVFISV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISVFISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 points.
Momentum
FISVFISV on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
FISVFISV on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.6% | +7.6% | FISV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.2% | +135.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 | FISV | 58 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | FISVon balance | revenue growth 5.3% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 9.3% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 10.8% vs -10.8%; gross margin 47.2% vs 38.9% — FISV takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FISV | Value 74 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs 29.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FISV | Risk Resilience 49 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | FISV | Target upside 17.6% vs 7.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FISV and INTC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FISV +23
- 58 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- FISV +24
- 58 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- FISV +18
- 59 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- FISV +9
- 51 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.
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
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.34%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.51%, 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 FISV's edge.
- 2INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode 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 | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.3% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 47.2% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.8% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.04 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 3 of 5 windows| Metric | FISV | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.1% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | -3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16% | 120.6% |
| Year to date | -21.1% | 159.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 299.2% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | FISV | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 37.6 |
| ADX (14) | 7.8 | 14.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | 29.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 47.7% |
Risk
FISV is the more resilient| Metric | FISV | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 2.91 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | 2.06 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | 3.84 |
| Max drawdown | -32.5% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -32% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.3% | 79.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FISV or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FISV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against INTC's 35. The edge comes from value 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 FISV or INTC the better buy right now?
FISV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FISV over INTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FISV leads Value by 44 points; FISV leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; FISV leads Momentum by 19 points. FISV 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, FISV or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +17.6% upside for FISV and +7.6% for INTC, 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 INTC?
FISV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FISV 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, FISV or INTC?
FISV 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 INTC?
FISV on the Momentum factor, by 19 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 INTC?
FISV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FISV on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 INTC?
FISV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.2% vs 38.9%; operating margin 21.4% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 10.8% vs -10.8%.
Is FISV's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
FISV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 23 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 FISV 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 FISV's edge; INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode 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 INTC?
FISV: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. INTC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on FISV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FISV 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.