INFY vs INTA Stock Comparison
Infosys Limited vs Intapp, Inc.
INFY leads
INFY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support INFY.
Infosys Limited
Intapp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INFY over INTA, 66 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. INFY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while INTA holds the stronger momentum profile. INFY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INFY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. INFY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Infosys Limited and Intapp, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare INFY and INTA 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.
- Value30%71 vs 50INFY +21
- Quality30%75 vs 59INFY +16
- Momentum25%56 vs 71INTA +15
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 37INFY +15
4 of 6 evidence groups favor INFY. INFY’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; INTA keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
INFY's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INFY and INTA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INFY (Infosys Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
INTA (Intapp, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 29.5%.
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
INFYINFY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
INTAINTA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
INFYINFY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
INTAINTA on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
INFYINFY on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
INFYINFY 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 | INFY | INTA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.4% | -13.1% | INFY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.8% | +57.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INFY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INFY | 66 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -13% vs 65%; TTM ROE 33% vs -10.8%; gross margin 30.3% vs 75.8%; operating margin 20.4% vs -6.9% |
| Valuation | INFY | Value 71 vs 50 |
| Technicals | INTA | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs 22.6%; vs 200-day -17.1% vs 35% |
| Risk Resilience | INFY | Risk Resilience 52 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | INFY | Target upside 7.4% vs -13.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INFY and INTA 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 INFY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4INFY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INFY +10
- 66 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- INFY +5
- 63 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- INFY +9
- 68 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- INFY +2
- 57 vs 55
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.85%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
INTA 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.25%, 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.
- 1INTA closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to INFY's edge.
- 2INTA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3INFY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | INFY | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.8% | 4.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -13% | 65% |
| Gross margin | 30.3% | 75.8% |
| Operating margin | 20.4% | -6.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.1 | 0.05 |
Performance
INTA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | INFY | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | 10.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.6% | 71.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19% | 50% |
| Year to date | -34.3% | -9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -29.7% | -5.6% |
Technicals
INTA has the stronger structure| Metric | INFY | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.7 | 63 |
| ADX (14) | 8.2 | 42.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | 22.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.1% | 35% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.5% | 47.7% |
Risk
INFY is the more resilient| Metric | INFY | INTA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.48 | 0.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.78 | 0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.17 | 0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -48.1% | -59.9% |
| Current drawdown | -42.1% | -12.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.8% | 58.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INFY or INTA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INFY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 66 against INTA's 56. The edge comes from value and quality. INTA 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 INFY or INTA the better buy right now?
INFY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 INFY over INTA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. INFY leads Value by 21 points; INFY leads Quality by 16 points; INTA leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INFY or INTA?
Analyst price targets imply +7.4% upside for INFY and -13.1% for INTA, so the Street currently favors INFY. 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, INFY or INTA?
INFY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. INFY 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, INFY or INTA?
INTA 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, INFY or INTA?
INTA on the Momentum factor, by 15 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, INFY or INTA?
INFY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. INFY on Risk Resilience, by 15 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is INFY more profitable than INTA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 30.3% vs 75.8%; operating margin 20.4% vs -6.9%; ttm roe 33% vs -10.8%. INFY leads on two measures and INTA on one measure, 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 INFY's lead over INTA getting stronger or weaker?
INFY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the INFY vs INTA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTA closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to INFY's edge; INTA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; INFY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about INFY and INTA?
INFY: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. INTA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 INFY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INFY and INTA with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.