FNB vs INTC Stock Comparison
FNB currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 30. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between FNB and INTC?
FNB leads the current stock comparison as F.N.B. Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
F.N.B. Corporation vs Intel Corp.
FNB leads
FNB leads by 25 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FNB, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
F.N.B. Corporation
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNB over INTC, 55 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. FNB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. FNB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors INTC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNB today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. FNB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 25 points over 30 sessions. FNB 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 F.N.B. Corporation 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 FNB 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.
- Risk Resilience60 vs 29FNB +31
- Momentum49 vs 21FNB +28
- Value56 vs 30FNB +26
- Quality57 vs 39FNB +18
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FNB. FNB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FNB's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNB and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNB (F.N.B. Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 22.2%.
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
FNBFNB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FNBFNB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNBFNB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
FNBFNB on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
FNBFNB on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 FNB, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FNB | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.3% | +18.2% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.5% | +122.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FNB | 55 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | FNBon balance | revenue growth 2.2% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 10.5% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs -10.8%; gross margin 64.4% vs 38.9% — FNB takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FNB | Value 56 vs 30 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.1% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -1.1% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FNB | Risk Resilience 60 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 16.3% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNB 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 25 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 FNB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FNB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 25 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNB +25
- 55 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- FNB +22
- 52 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- FNB +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FNB +20
- 62 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 / 0 bearish
Only FNB
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- 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
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.79%, AIQ +3 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNB's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FNB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
FNB leads on balance| Metric | FNB | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.2% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.5% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 64.4% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 26.5% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.73 | 0.58 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FNB | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.4% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.1% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | 3.3% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.5% | 148.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FNB | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.4 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.1% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.1% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.2% | 46.6% |
Risk
FNB is the more resilient| Metric | FNB | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.63 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.9 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -16.3% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.8% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNB or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 FNB or INTC the better buy right now?
FNB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 FNB over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FNB leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; FNB leads Momentum by 28 points; FNB leads Value by 26 points. FNB 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, FNB or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +16.3% upside for FNB and +18.2% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FNB. 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, FNB or INTC?
FNB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FNB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, FNB or INTC?
FNB 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, FNB or INTC?
FNB on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, FNB or INTC?
FNB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FNB on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 FNB more profitable than INTC?
FNB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 64.4% vs 38.9%; operating margin 26.5% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 8.9% vs -10.8%.
Is FNB's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
FNB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 25 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 FNB vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNB's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; FNB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 FNB and INTC?
FNB: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 FNB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FNB 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.