GRMN vs INTC Stock Comparison
GRMN currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 33. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between GRMN and INTC?
GRMN leads the current stock comparison as Garmin Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Garmin Ltd. vs Intel Corp.
GRMN leads
GRMN leads by 29 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support GRMN, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Garmin Ltd.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRMN over INTC, 62 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. GRMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. GRMN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors INTC. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. GRMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 29 points over 30 sessions. GRMN 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 Garmin Ltd. 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 GRMN 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 Resilience71 vs 28GRMN +43
- Quality78 vs 39GRMN +39
- Value51 vs 30GRMN +21
- Momentum51 vs 34GRMN +17
5 of 6 evidence groups favor GRMN. GRMN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -28
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
GRMN's lead narrowed by 9 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GRMN and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRMN (Garmin Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 52.8% against 31.9%.
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
GRMNGRMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GRMNGRMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GRMNGRMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
GRMNGRMN on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
GRMNGRMN on Risk Resilience, by 43 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 GRMN, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GRMN | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.5% | +76.7% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.1% | +107.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 25 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GRMN | 62 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | GRMNon balance | revenue growth 15.3% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 33.8% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 21% vs -10.8%; gross margin 60.1% vs 38.9% — GRMN takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GRMN | Value 51 vs 30 |
| Technicals | GRMN | Price vs 50-day -3.7% vs -35.3%; vs 200-day 7.6% vs 10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | GRMN | Risk Resilience 71 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 18.5% vs 76.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GRMN 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 29 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)
- 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 GRMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GRMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 29 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRMN +29
- 62 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- GRMN +38
- 69 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- GRMN +22
- 62 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- GRMN +26
- 58 vs 32
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish
Only GRMN
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.58%)
- 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 down over the latest session (price -2.6%, AIQ -8 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -28.58%, AIQ +1 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 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge.
- 2INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GRMN'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
GRMN leads on balance| Metric | GRMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.3% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.8% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 60.1% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 27.6% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GRMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5% | -20.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.4% | 4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.7% | 6.3% |
| Year to date | 34.3% | 158.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.8% | 149.6% |
Technicals
GRMN has the stronger structure| Metric | GRMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 36.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.7% | -35.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.6% | 10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.9% | 52.8% |
Risk
GRMN is the more resilient| Metric | GRMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 1.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.51 | 2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -13% | -32.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.9% | 77.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GRMN or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against INTC's 33. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 GRMN or INTC the better buy right now?
GRMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 GRMN over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRMN leads Risk Resilience by 43 points; GRMN leads Quality by 39 points; GRMN leads Value by 21 points. GRMN 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, GRMN or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +18.5% upside for GRMN and +76.7% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GRMN. 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, GRMN or INTC?
GRMN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GRMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, GRMN or INTC?
GRMN 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, GRMN or INTC?
GRMN on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, GRMN or INTC?
GRMN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRMN on Risk Resilience, by 43 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 GRMN more profitable than INTC?
GRMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.1% vs 38.9%; operating margin 27.6% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 21% vs -10.8%.
Is GRMN's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
GRMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 29 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GRMN 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 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge; INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; GRMN'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 GRMN and INTC?
GRMN: 3 bullish / 0 bearish. INTC: 1 bullish / 1 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 GRMN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GRMN 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.