INTC vs GS Stock Comparison
GS currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 30. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between INTC and GS?
GS leads the current stock comparison as The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
GS leads
GS leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from INTC.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support GS, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Intel Corp.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GS over INTC, 50 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. GS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. GS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. GS lead: Reversed — INTC led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 20. GS 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 Intel Corp. and The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 INTC and GS 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 Resilience29 vs 64GS +35
- Value30 vs 54GS +24
- Momentum21 vs 45GS +24
- Quality39 vs 44GS +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor GS. GS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
GS's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and GS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GS (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 17.4%.
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
GSGS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GSGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
GSGS on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
GSGS on Risk Resilience, by 35 points.
Analyst upside
GSGS 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 | INTC | GS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.2% | +23.2% | GS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +122.9% | +38.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GS | 30 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | GSon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs -1.9%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -18.9%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 17.9%; gross margin 38.9% vs 57.5% — GS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GS | Value 30 vs 54 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs -7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | GS | Risk Resilience 29 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | GS | Target upside 18.2% vs 23.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and GS 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 GS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GS lead: Reversed — INTC led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 20.
- Today
- GS +20
- 30 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- GS +14
- 30 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- INTC +6
- 43 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- GS +6
- 42 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when GS moved ahead of INTC.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.29%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only GS
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, 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.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.25%, AIQ +3 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 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to GS's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GS'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
GS leads on balance| Metric | INTC | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -18.9% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 57.5% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 25% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 6.71 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | GS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -19.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | 148.5% | 0.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 148.9% | 16.7% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | GS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.4 | 42.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | -7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 17.4% |
Risk
GS is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.73 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -24% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -23.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 32% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or GS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 INTC or GS the better buy right now?
GS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 GS over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GS leads Risk Resilience by 35 points; GS leads Value by 24 points; GS leads Momentum by 24 points. GS 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, INTC or GS?
Analyst price targets imply +18.2% upside for INTC and +23.2% for GS, so the Street currently favors GS. 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, INTC or GS?
GS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, INTC or GS?
GS 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, INTC or GS?
GS on the Momentum factor, by 24 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, INTC or GS?
GS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GS on Risk Resilience, by 35 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 INTC more profitable than GS?
GS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 57.5%; operating margin 0.1% vs 25%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 17.9%.
Is GS's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
GS lead: Reversed — INTC led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GS now leads by 20. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when GS moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the INTC vs GS 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 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to GS's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GS'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 INTC and GS?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 INTC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and GS 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.