INTC vs NVTS Stock Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Navitas Semiconductor Corp
INTC leads
INTC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NVTS on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support INTC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Intel Corp.
Navitas Semiconductor Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INTC over NVTS, 35 versus 31 as of Sep 5, 2026. INTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while NVTS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. INTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NVTS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. INTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and Navitas Semiconductor Corp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare INTC and NVTS 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.
- Momentum25%40 vs 25INTC +15
- Risk Resilience15%29 vs 40NVTS +11
- Quality30%39 vs 30INTC +9
- Value30%30 vs 34NVTS +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor INTC. INTC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; NVTS keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
INTC's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and NVTS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INTC (Intel Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
NVTS (Navitas Semiconductor Corp): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 69% against 47.7%.
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
INTCINTC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
NVTSNVTS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NVTSNVTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
NVTSNVTS on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
NVTSNVTS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors INTC, analyst targets favor NVTS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | INTC | NVTS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.6% | +36.1% | NVTS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +135.8% | +52.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 4 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INTC | 35 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 18.8% vs 22.5%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -5.3%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs -61.5%; gross margin 38.9% vs -1.7% |
| Valuation | NVTS | Value 30 vs 34 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -8.6%; vs 200-day 29.2% vs -8.6% |
| Risk Resilience | NVTS | Risk Resilience 29 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | NVTS | Target upside 7.6% vs 36.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and NVTS 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 INTC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4INTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INTC +4
- 35 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- INTC +1
- 34 vs 33
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 41 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- INTC +8
- 42 vs 34
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when INTC moved ahead of NVTS.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.34%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NVTS 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.51%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +6.31%, 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.
- 1NVTS closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge.
- 2NVTS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3INTC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 22.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -5.3% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | -1.7% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | -270.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | -61.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.01 |
Performance
INTC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.1% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | -15% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.4% | -53% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 120.6% | 43.9% |
| Year to date | 159.6% | 65.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 299.2% | 105.9% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.6 | 27.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14.2 | 14.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -8.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.2% | -8.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.7% | 69% |
Risk
NVTS is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.91 | 4.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.06 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.84 | 2.4 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -69.4% |
| Current drawdown | -32% | -62.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.2% | 126.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -9.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or NVTS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INTC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 35 against NVTS's 31. The edge comes from momentum and quality. NVTS is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 NVTS the better buy right now?
INTC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor INTC over NVTS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. INTC leads Momentum by 15 points; NVTS leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; INTC leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or NVTS?
Analyst price targets imply +7.6% upside for INTC and +36.1% for NVTS, so the Street currently favors NVTS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors INTC. 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 NVTS?
NVTS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NVTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 NVTS?
NVTS 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 NVTS?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 15 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 NVTS?
NVTS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NVTS on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is INTC more profitable than NVTS?
INTC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs -1.7%; operating margin 0.1% vs -270.2%; ttm roe -10.8% vs -61.5%.
Is INTC's lead over NVTS getting stronger or weaker?
INTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when INTC moved ahead of NVTS.
What would change the INTC vs NVTS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NVTS closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge; NVTS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; INTC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about INTC and NVTS?
INTC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. NVTS: 2 bullish / 1 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 NVTS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and NVTS with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.