FN vs INTC Stock Comparison
FN currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 30. The clearest difference is value, while INTC has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FN and INTC?
FN leads the current stock comparison as Fabrinet, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fabrinet vs Intel Corp.
FN leads
FN leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FN.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FN over INTC, 46 versus 30 as of Oct 22, 2026. FN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. FN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. FN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fabrinet 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 FN 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.
- Value59 vs 30FN +29
- Risk Resilience54 vs 29FN +25
- Quality56 vs 39FN +17
- Momentum13 vs 21INTC +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FN. FN’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; INTC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FN and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FN (Fabrinet): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
FNFN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FNFN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNFN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
FNFN on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
FNFN 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 | FN | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +102.4% | +25.7% | FN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +5.1% | +115.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 23 | 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 FN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FN | 46 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 8.4% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 11.5% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 21% vs -10.8%; gross margin 12% vs 38.9% |
| Valuation | FN | Value 59 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -18.1% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -31.6% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FN | Risk Resilience 54 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | FN | Target upside 102.4% vs 25.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FN 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 FN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FN +16
- 46 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- FN +17
- 47 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- FN +15
- 58 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FN +21
- 63 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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.87%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.88%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
INTC 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.16%, 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 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to FN's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | FN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.5% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 12% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 10% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.9% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -30.8% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.5% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11% | 148.9% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | FN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.4 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.1% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -31.6% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.9% | 46.6% |
Risk
FN is the more resilient| Metric | FN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.98 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -52.4% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -52.4% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 76% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FN or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 46 against INTC's 30. 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 FN or INTC the better buy right now?
FN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 FN over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FN leads Value by 29 points; FN leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; FN leads Quality by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FN or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +102.4% upside for FN and +25.7% for INTC, so the Street currently favors FN. 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, FN or INTC?
FN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, FN or INTC?
FN 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, FN or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, FN or INTC?
FN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FN on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 FN more profitable than INTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12% vs 38.9%; operating margin 10% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 21% 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 FN's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
FN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 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 FN 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 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to FN's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; FN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 FN and INTC?
FN: 0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 FN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FN 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.