INTC vs IWD Stock Comparison
IWD currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 31. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between INTC and IWD?
IWD leads the current stock comparison as iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
IWD leads
IWD leads by 29 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 34 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support IWD, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWD over INTC, 60 versus 31 as of Nov 7, 2026. IWD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. IWD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. IWD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 34 to 29 points over 30 sessions. IWD 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 iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF 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 IWD 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.
- Momentum15 vs 65IWD +50
- Risk Resilience33 vs 77IWD +44
- Quality42 vs 66IWD +24
- Value34 vs 42IWD +8
4 of 4 evidence groups favor IWD. IWD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
IWD's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and IWD both carry a full feed there.
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
IWDIWD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IWDIWD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
IWDIWD on the Momentum factor, by 50 points.
Lower downside
IWDIWD on Risk Resilience, by 44 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | INTC | IWD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +102% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +114.4% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 28 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWD | 31 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWD | Value 34 vs 42 |
| Technicals | IWD | Price vs 50-day -42.5% vs 1%; vs 200-day -35.1% vs 7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | IWD | Risk Resilience 33 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and IWD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 29 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 IWD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6IWD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 34 to 29 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWD +29
- 31 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWD +32
- 32 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- IWD +34
- 30 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- IWD +27
- 35 vs 62
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only INTC
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (11.02%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IWD
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IWD 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +7.71%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.36%, 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.
- 1INTC closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWD's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IWD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 29-point move would eliminate IWD's advantage entirely.
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 | INTC | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| Gross margin | 40.2% | — |
| Operating margin | 3.2% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -11.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.44 | — |
Performance
IWD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14.4% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -46.2% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -41.1% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -49.1% | 10.1% |
| Year to date | 52.5% | 22.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 46.6% | 26.1% |
Technicals
IWD has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.6 | 53.8 |
| ADX (14) | 37.9 | 26.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -42.5% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -35.1% | 7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 121.5% | 15.1% |
Risk
IWD is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.19 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 1.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 2.71 |
| Max drawdown | -62.9% | -7.1% |
| Current drawdown | -60.1% | -3% |
| Annualized volatility | 84.4% | 11.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.5% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or IWD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IWD is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 60 against INTC's 31. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 IWD the better buy right now?
IWD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IWD over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IWD leads Momentum by 50 points; IWD leads Risk Resilience by 44 points; IWD leads Quality by 24 points. IWD 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 IWD?
Analyst price targets imply +102% upside for INTC and not covered for IWD. 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 IWD?
IWD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IWD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 IWD?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 IWD?
IWD on the Momentum factor, by 50 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 IWD?
IWD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWD on Risk Resilience, by 44 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 IWD?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IWD's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
IWD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 34 to 29 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the INTC vs IWD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWD's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; IWD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 29-point move would eliminate IWD's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about INTC and IWD?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWD: 3 bullish / 1 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 INTC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IWD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.