ICE vs IDCC Stock Comparison
IDCC currently leads ICE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 49. The clearest difference is value, while ICE has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ICE and IDCC?
IDCC leads the current stock comparison as InterDigital, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. vs InterDigital, Inc.
IDCC leads
IDCC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support IDCC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
InterDigital, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IDCC over ICE, 59 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. IDCC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ICE holds the stronger momentum profile. IDCC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IDCC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IDCC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and InterDigital, Inc. 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 ICE and IDCC 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.
- Value28 vs 50IDCC +22
- Quality63 vs 82IDCC +19
- Momentum49 vs 42ICE +7
- Risk Resilience65 vs 58ICE +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor IDCC. IDCC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ICE keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
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 2 active signals are unchanged.
IDCC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ICE and IDCC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IDCC (InterDigital, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ICE (Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
IDCCIDCC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IDCCIDCC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IDCCIDCC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
ICEICE on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
ICEICE on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
IDCCIDCC 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 | ICE | IDCC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.7% | +36.4% | IDCC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ICE | IDCC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.86% | 10.91% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $1.400 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.920 | $2.350 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #107 | #79 |
IDCC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.91% a year against ICE's 9.86%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IDCC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IDCC | 49 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | IDCCon balance | revenue growth -1.5% vs 26.7%; EPS growth -31.7% vs 53.9%; TTM ROE 13.8% vs 26.8%; gross margin 73.4% vs 78.7%; operating margin 44.9% vs 43.8% — IDCC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IDCC | Value 28 vs 50 |
| Technicals | ICE | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs -6.3%; vs 200-day 0.9% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | ICE | Risk Resilience 65 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | IDCC | Target upside 8.7% vs 36.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ICE and IDCC 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 IDCC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30IDCC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IDCC +10
- 49 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- IDCC +1
- 58 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- IDCC +7
- 54 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ICE +1
- 59 vs 58
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when IDCC moved ahead of ICE.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ICE
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IDCC 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -6.79%, 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.
- 1ICE closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to IDCC's edge.
- 2ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IDCC'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
IDCC leads on balance| Metric | ICE | IDCC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.5% | 26.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.7% | 53.9% |
| Gross margin | 73.4% | 78.7% |
| Operating margin | 44.9% | 43.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.8% | 26.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.69 | 0.33 |
Performance
ICE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ICE | IDCC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | 5.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.1% | -9.1% |
| Year to date | -3.7% | 0.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | -13.5% |
Technicals
ICE has the stronger structure| Metric | ICE | IDCC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51 | 44.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 11.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | -6.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.9% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.3% | 29.1% |
Risk
ICE is the more resilient| Metric | ICE | IDCC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.17 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.06 | -0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.08 | -0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -29.8% | -36.8% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -19.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 48% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ICE or IDCC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IDCC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against ICE's 49. The edge comes from value and quality. ICE 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 ICE or IDCC the better buy right now?
IDCC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 IDCC over ICE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IDCC leads Value by 22 points; IDCC leads Quality by 19 points; ICE leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ICE or IDCC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.7% upside for ICE and +36.4% for IDCC, so the Street currently favors IDCC. 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, ICE or IDCC?
IDCC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IDCC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, ICE or IDCC?
IDCC 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, ICE or IDCC?
ICE on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, ICE or IDCC?
ICE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ICE on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 ICE more profitable than IDCC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.4% vs 78.7%; operating margin 44.9% vs 43.8%; ttm roe 13.8% vs 26.8%. ICE leads on one measure and IDCC on two measures, 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 IDCC's lead over ICE getting stronger or weaker?
IDCC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when IDCC moved ahead of ICE.
What would change the ICE vs IDCC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ICE closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to IDCC's edge; ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; IDCC'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 ICE and IDCC?
ICE: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. IDCC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 ICE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IDCC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ICE and IDCC 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.