INTC vs IWM Stock Comparison
IWM currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 30. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between INTC and IWM?
IWM leads the current stock comparison as iShares Russell 2000 ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
IWM leads
IWM leads by 30 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support IWM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWM over INTC, 60 versus 30 as of Oct 22, 2026. IWM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. IWM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IWM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 30 points over 30 sessions. IWM 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 2000 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 IWM 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 76IWM +47
- Quality39 vs 75IWM +36
- Value30 vs 55IWM +25
- Momentum21 vs 38IWM +17
3 of 4 evidence groups favor IWM. IWM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
IWM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and IWM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 15.8%.
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
IWMIWM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IWMIWM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
IWMIWM on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
IWMIWM on Risk Resilience, by 47 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 | IWM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25.7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +115.5% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWM | 30 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWM | Value 30 vs 55 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -4%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | IWM | Risk Resilience 29 vs 76 |
| 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 IWM 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 30 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 IWM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IWM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 30 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWM +30
- 30 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWM +28
- 30 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- IWM +14
- 43 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- IWM +26
- 42 vs 68
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 (6.29%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IWM
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.41%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IWM 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 +1.39%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.25%, AIQ +2 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 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWM's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IWM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 | INTC | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | — |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | INTC | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | 0.5% |
| Year to date | 148.5% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 148.9% | 12.5% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.4 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 40.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 15.8% |
Risk
IWM is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.73 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -9.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 18.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or IWM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IWM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 60 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 IWM the better buy right now?
IWM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 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 IWM over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IWM leads Risk Resilience by 47 points; IWM leads Quality by 36 points; IWM leads Value by 25 points. IWM 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 IWM?
Analyst price targets imply +25.7% upside for INTC and not covered for IWM. 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 IWM?
IWM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IWM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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 IWM?
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 IWM?
IWM on the Momentum factor, by 17 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 IWM?
IWM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWM on Risk Resilience, by 47 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 IWM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IWM's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
IWM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 30 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 INTC vs IWM 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 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWM's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; IWM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 INTC and IWM?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWM: 1 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 IWM 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.