GNW vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare GNW and INTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GNW and INTC?
GNW leads the current stock comparison as Genworth Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Genworth Financial, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
GNW leads
GNW leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support GNW, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Genworth Financial, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GNW over INTC, 63 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. GNW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. GNW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor GNW today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GNW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Genworth Financial, Inc. and Intel Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare GNW 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 Resilience83 vs 28GNW +55
- Value54 vs 30GNW +24
- Quality48 vs 39GNW +9
- Momentum78 vs 77Even
4 of 5 evidence groups favor GNW. GNW’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
GNW's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GNW and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GNW (Genworth Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 58.9% against 14.3%.
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
GNWGNW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GNWGNW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GNWGNW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GNWGNW on Risk Resilience, by 55 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 | GNW | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | -0.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +136.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor GNW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GNW | 63 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | GNWon balance | revenue growth 10.3% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 8.3% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 2.4% vs -10.8%; gross margin 40.6% vs 38.9% — GNW takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GNW | Value 54 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 6% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day 16.1% vs 33.4% |
| Risk Resilience | GNW | Risk Resilience 83 vs 28 |
| 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 GNW 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 GNW.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GNW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GNW +19
- 63 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- GNW +26
- 61 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- GNW +20
- 58 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- GNW +30
- 63 vs 33
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.77%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
GNW 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 +0.19%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.61%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to GNW's edge.
- 2INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3GNW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
GNW leads on balance| Metric | GNW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.3% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.3% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 40.6% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 5.8% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.4% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.17 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GNW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.4% | 11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.5% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.2% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26% | 109.1% |
| Year to date | 15.9% | 171.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.9% | 309.8% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | GNW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.5 | 61.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.1% | 33.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 58.9% |
Risk
GNW is the more resilient| Metric | GNW | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 2.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 2.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 3.98 |
| Max drawdown | -14.1% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -0.2% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 79.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GNW or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GNW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against INTC's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 GNW or INTC the better buy right now?
GNW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 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 GNW over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GNW leads Risk Resilience by 55 points; GNW leads Value by 24 points; GNW leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GNW or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for GNW and -0.1% 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, GNW or INTC?
GNW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GNW 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, GNW or INTC?
GNW 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, GNW or INTC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, GNW or INTC?
GNW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GNW on Risk Resilience, by 55 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 GNW more profitable than INTC?
GNW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 40.6% vs 38.9%; operating margin 5.8% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 2.4% vs -10.8%.
Is GNW's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
GNW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GNW 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 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to GNW's edge; INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; GNW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 GNW and INTC?
GNW: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. INTC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 GNW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GNW 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.