GDXJ vs INTC Stock Comparison
GDXJ currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 30. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between GDXJ and INTC?
GDXJ leads the current stock comparison as VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF vs Intel Corp.
GDXJ leads
GDXJ leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 3 evidence groups support GDXJ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GDXJ over INTC, 51 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. GDXJ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. GDXJ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXJ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. GDXJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF 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 GDXJ 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.
- Quality72 vs 39GDXJ +33
- Risk Resilience41 vs 29GDXJ +12
- Momentum32 vs 21GDXJ +11
2 of 3 evidence groups favor GDXJ. GDXJ’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
GDXJ's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GDXJ and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GDXJ (VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on 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
GDXJGDXJ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GDXJGDXJ on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
GDXJGDXJ on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | GDXJ | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +18.2% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +122.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXJ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GDXJ | 51 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -9.9% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -9.6% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | GDXJ | Risk Resilience 41 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GDXJ 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 21 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 GDXJ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GDXJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GDXJ +21
- 51 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- GDXJ +19
- 49 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- GDXJ +4
- 47 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- GDXJ +28
- 70 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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
GDXJ 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.63%, AIQ +1 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 Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to GDXJ's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GDXJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 | GDXJ | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | — | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | — | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.58 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GDXJ | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.7% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.2% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | -5.2% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.5% | 148.9% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | GDXJ | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.9% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.6% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.8% | 46.6% |
Risk
GDXJ is the more resilient| Metric | GDXJ | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.27 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.41 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -41.3% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -31% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GDXJ or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GDXJ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from quality 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 GDXJ or INTC the better buy right now?
GDXJ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 3 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 GDXJ over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GDXJ leads Quality by 33 points; GDXJ leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; GDXJ leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GDXJ or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for GDXJ and +18.2% for INTC. 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, GDXJ or INTC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, GDXJ or INTC?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, GDXJ or INTC?
GDXJ on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, GDXJ or INTC?
GDXJ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GDXJ on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 GDXJ more profitable than INTC?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is GDXJ's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
GDXJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 21 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 GDXJ vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to GDXJ's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GDXJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 GDXJ and INTC?
GDXJ: 1 bullish / 1 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 GDXJ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.