ILMN vs INTC Stock Comparison
ILMN currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 30. The clearest difference is quality, while INTC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ILMN and INTC?
ILMN leads the current stock comparison as Illumina, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Illumina, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
ILMN leads
ILMN leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ILMN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Illumina, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ILMN over INTC, 49 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. ILMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while INTC holds the stronger value profile. ILMN 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 ILMN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ILMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Illumina, Inc. 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 ILMN 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.
- Quality78 vs 39ILMN +39
- Momentum48 vs 21ILMN +27
- Risk Resilience38 vs 29ILMN +9
- Value26 vs 30INTC +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ILMN. ILMN’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; INTC keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ILMN's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ILMN and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ILMN (Illumina, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
ILMNILMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ILMNILMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
INTCINTC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
ILMNILMN on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
ILMNILMN on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 ILMN, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ILMN | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -25.9% | +18.2% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +87.3% | +122.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 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 ILMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ILMN | 49 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | ILMNon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 55.7% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 31.1% vs -10.8%; gross margin 66.8% vs 38.9% — ILMN takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | INTC | Value 26 vs 30 |
| Technicals | ILMN | Price vs 50-day 19.4% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day 56.7% vs 7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ILMN | Risk Resilience 38 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside -25.9% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ILMN 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 ILMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ILMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ILMN +19
- 49 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- ILMN +20
- 50 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- ILMN +17
- 60 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- ILMN +11
- 53 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ILMN
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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.
ILMN 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 +5.57%, 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 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to ILMN's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ILMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
ILMN leads on balance| Metric | ILMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 55.7% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 31.1% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.89 | 0.58 |
Performance
ILMN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ILMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.3% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 40.4% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 103% | 38.4% |
| Year to date | 104.3% | 148.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 179.4% | 148.9% |
Technicals
ILMN has the stronger structure| Metric | ILMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.1 | 16.4 |
| ADX (14) | 37.6 | 23.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 19.4% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 56.7% | 7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.1% | 46.6% |
Risk
ILMN is the more resilient| Metric | ILMN | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.77 | 3.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.26 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.71 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -25.7% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -8.8% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.5% | 77.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ILMN or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ILMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from quality and momentum. INTC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ILMN or INTC the better buy right now?
ILMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 ILMN over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ILMN leads Quality by 39 points; ILMN leads Momentum by 27 points; ILMN leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ILMN or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply -25.9% upside for ILMN and +18.2% for INTC, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ILMN. 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, ILMN or INTC?
INTC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. INTC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, ILMN or INTC?
ILMN 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, ILMN or INTC?
ILMN on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, ILMN or INTC?
ILMN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ILMN on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 ILMN more profitable than INTC?
ILMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 66.8% vs 38.9%; operating margin 21% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 31.1% vs -10.8%.
Is ILMN's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
ILMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 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 ILMN 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 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to ILMN's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ILMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 ILMN and INTC?
ILMN: 3 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 ILMN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ILMN 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.