INTC vs LW Stock Comparison
LW currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 30. The clearest difference is momentum, while INTC has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between INTC and LW?
LW leads the current stock comparison as Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
LW leads
LW leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from INTC. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LW over INTC, 49 versus 30 as of Oct 22, 2026. LW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while INTC holds the stronger quality profile. LW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors INTC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. LW lead: Reversed — INTC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LW now leads by 19.
Compare Intel Corp. and Lamb Weston Holdings, 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 LW 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.
- Momentum21 vs 82LW +61
- Value30 vs 52LW +22
- Quality39 vs 25INTC +14
- Risk Resilience29 vs 36LW +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LW. LW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; INTC keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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: 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.
LW's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and LW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LW (Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
LWLW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
LWLW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
LWLW on the Momentum factor, by 61 points.
Lower downside
LWLW on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
INTCINTC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LW, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | INTC | LW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25.7% | +1.4% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +115.5% | +18.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LW | 30 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Even | TTM ROE -10.8% vs 16.1%; gross margin 38.9% vs 20.6% |
| Valuation | LW | Value 30 vs 52 |
| Technicals | LW | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs 6.7%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs 16.6% |
| Risk Resilience | LW | Risk Resilience 29 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 25.7% vs 1.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and LW 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 wide at 19 points. (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 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 LW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LW lead: Reversed — INTC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LW now leads by 19.
- Today
- LW +19
- 30 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- LW +19
- 30 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- INTC +7
- 43 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- LW +1
- 42 vs 43
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when LW 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
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only LW
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
LW 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.25%, AIQ 0 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 61 points behind, the largest single contributor to LW's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3LW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 | LW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 20.6% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 8.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 16.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 2.16 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | INTC | LW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | 3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | 16% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | 12% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | 20.1% |
| Year to date | 148.5% | 28.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 148.9% | -17.2% |
Technicals
LW has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | LW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.4 | 83.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 35.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | 16.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 48.6% |
Risk
LW is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | LW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 0.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | -0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.73 | -0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -42% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -19% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 42.5% |
| 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 LW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 49 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from momentum and value. INTC is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 INTC or LW the better buy right now?
LW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LW over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LW leads Momentum by 61 points; LW leads Value by 22 points; INTC leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or LW?
Analyst price targets imply +25.7% upside for INTC and +1.4% for LW, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LW. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, INTC or LW?
LW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 LW?
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 LW?
LW on the Momentum factor, by 61 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 LW?
LW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LW on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 LW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.9% vs 20.6%; operating margin 0.1% vs 8.9%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 16.1%. Each name leads on one measure, 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 LW's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
LW lead: Reversed — INTC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LW now leads by 19. 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 2026-10-07, when LW moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the INTC vs LW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Momentum gap — currently 61 points behind, the largest single contributor to LW's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; LW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 LW?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LW: 5 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 LW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and LW 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.