INTC vs IWMI Stock Comparison
IWMI currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 30. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between INTC and IWMI?
IWMI leads the current stock comparison as NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
IWMI leads
IWMI leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support IWMI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWMI over INTC, 52 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. IWMI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. IWMI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWMI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. IWMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 22 points over 30 sessions. IWMI 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 NEOS Russell 2000 High Income 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 IWMI 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 81IWMI +52
- Value30 vs 56IWMI +26
- Momentum21 vs 41IWMI +20
- Quality39 vs 44IWMI +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor IWMI. IWMI’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 +9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IWMI'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 IWMI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF): 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 13.3%.
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
IWMIIWMI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IWMIIWMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
IWMIIWMI on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
IWMIIWMI on Risk Resilience, by 52 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 | IWMI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +122.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | — | 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 IWMI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWMI | 30 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWMI | Value 30 vs 56 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs -4% |
| Risk Resilience | IWMI | Risk Resilience 29 vs 81 |
| 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 IWMI 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 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 IWMI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20IWMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWMI +22
- 30 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- IWMI +20
- 30 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- IWMI +5
- 43 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.88%)
- 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
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IWMI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.19%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IWMI 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.89%, 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 52 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWMI's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IWMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -6.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | 148.5% | 0.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 148.9% | -0.4% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.4 | 48.6 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 41 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | -4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 13.3% |
Risk
IWMI is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.73 | -0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -10.6% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -9% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 15.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or IWMI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IWMI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 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 IWMI the better buy right now?
IWMI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 IWMI over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IWMI leads Risk Resilience by 52 points; IWMI leads Value by 26 points; IWMI leads Momentum by 20 points. IWMI 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 IWMI?
Analyst price targets imply +18.2% upside for INTC and not covered for IWMI. 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 IWMI?
IWMI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IWMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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 IWMI?
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 IWMI?
IWMI on the Momentum factor, by 20 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 IWMI?
IWMI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWMI on Risk Resilience, by 52 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 IWMI?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IWMI's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
IWMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 22 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 45 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-09-06 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the INTC vs IWMI 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 52 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWMI's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; IWMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 IWMI?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWMI: 1 bullish / 2 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 INTC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IWMI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, 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.