INTA vs JKHY Stock Comparison
JKHY currently leads INTA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 59. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while INTA has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between INTA and JKHY?
JKHY leads the current stock comparison as Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intapp, Inc. vs Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
JKHY leads
JKHY leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JKHY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intapp, Inc.
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JKHY over INTA, 65 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. JKHY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while INTA holds the stronger momentum profile. JKHY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JKHY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. JKHY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intapp, Inc. and Jack Henry & Associates, 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 INTA and JKHY 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 Resilience42 vs 61JKHY +19
- Momentum81 vs 63INTA +18
- Quality59 vs 73JKHY +14
- Value50 vs 61JKHY +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JKHY. JKHY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; INTA keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
JKHY's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTA and JKHY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JKHY (Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
INTA (Intapp, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 44.5% against 19.8%.
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
JKHYJKHY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
INTAINTA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JKHYJKHY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
INTAINTA on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
JKHYJKHY on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
JKHYJKHY 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 | INTA | JKHY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -24.4% | +18.1% | JKHY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.4% | +31.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 12 | 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 JKHY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JKHY | 59 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 65% vs -8.2%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 23.5%; gross margin 75.8% vs 43.6%; operating margin -6.9% vs 24.9% |
| Valuation | JKHY | Value 50 vs 61 |
| Technicals | INTA | Price vs 50-day 15.1% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 47.4% vs -0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | JKHY | Risk Resilience 42 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | JKHY | Target upside -24.4% vs 18.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTA and JKHY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 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 JKHY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JKHY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JKHY +6
- 59 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- JKHY +11
- 59 vs 70
- 30 sessions ago
- JKHY +7
- 47 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- JKHY +3
- 58 vs 61
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when INTA moved ahead of JKHY.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.66%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
JKHY 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 +1.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.84%, 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.
- 1INTA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to JKHY's edge.
- 2INTA's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3JKHY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
Split| Metric | INTA | JKHY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.4% | -0.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 65% | -8.2% |
| Gross margin | 75.8% | 43.6% |
| Operating margin | -6.9% | 24.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 23.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.02 |
Performance
INTA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | INTA | JKHY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 13% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 24.1% | 3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 71.8% | 5.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 95.6% | -0.5% |
| Year to date | -2.3% | -15.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.9% | 1.2% |
Technicals
INTA has the stronger structure| Metric | INTA | JKHY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 86.8 | 75.1 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 15.1% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 47.4% | -0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.5% | 19.8% |
Risk
JKHY is the more resilient| Metric | INTA | JKHY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.4 | -0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.55 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.89 | 0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -59.9% | -35.9% |
| Current drawdown | -6.1% | -19.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 60.1% | 29.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTA or JKHY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JKHY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 65 against INTA's 59. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 INTA or JKHY the better buy right now?
JKHY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JKHY over INTA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JKHY leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; INTA leads Momentum by 18 points; JKHY leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTA or JKHY?
Analyst price targets imply -24.4% upside for INTA and +18.1% for JKHY, so the Street currently favors JKHY. 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, INTA or JKHY?
JKHY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JKHY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, INTA or JKHY?
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, INTA or JKHY?
INTA on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, INTA or JKHY?
JKHY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JKHY on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 INTA more profitable than JKHY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.8% vs 43.6%; operating margin -6.9% vs 24.9%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 23.5%. INTA leads on one measure and JKHY 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 JKHY's lead over INTA getting stronger or weaker?
JKHY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when INTA moved ahead of JKHY.
What would change the INTA vs JKHY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to JKHY's edge; INTA's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; JKHY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 INTA and JKHY?
INTA: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JKHY: 2 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 INTA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JKHY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTA and JKHY 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.