INTC vs PFS Stock Comparison
PFS currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 30. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between INTC and PFS?
PFS leads the current stock comparison as Provident Financial Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Provident Financial Services, Inc.
PFS leads
PFS leads by 26 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PFS, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Intel Corp.
Provident Financial Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PFS over INTC, 56 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. PFS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. PFS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. PFS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 26 points over 30 sessions. PFS 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 Provident Financial Services, 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 PFS 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 73PFS +44
- Momentum21 vs 55PFS +34
- Value30 vs 59PFS +29
- Quality39 vs 45PFS +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PFS. PFS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
PFS's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and PFS 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
PFSPFS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PFSPFS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PFSPFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
PFSPFS on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
PFSPFS 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 | PFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.2% | +17.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +122.9% | +3.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PFS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PFS | 30 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | PFSon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs -5.7%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -1.6%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 11%; gross margin 38.9% vs 63.2% — PFS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PFS | Value 30 vs 59 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PFS | Risk Resilience 29 vs 73 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 18.2% vs 17.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and PFS 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 26 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 PFS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PFS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 26 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PFS +26
- 30 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- PFS +20
- 30 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- PFS +6
- 43 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- PFS +20
- 42 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 (6.29%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only PFS
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
INTC 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.
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 +0.04%, AIQ +4 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFS's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3PFS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
PFS leads on balance| Metric | INTC | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | -5.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -1.6% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 28.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 1.65 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | INTC | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | 0.7% |
| Year to date | 148.5% | 14.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 148.9% | 26% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | INTC | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.4 | 57.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 30.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 15.7% |
Risk
PFS is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | PFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.73 | 1.35 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -15.4% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -10.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 23.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or PFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PFS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 PFS the better buy right now?
PFS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 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 PFS over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PFS leads Risk Resilience by 44 points; PFS leads Momentum by 34 points; PFS leads Value by 29 points. PFS 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 PFS?
Analyst price targets imply +18.2% upside for INTC and +17.6% for PFS. 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 PFS?
PFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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 PFS?
PFS 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 PFS?
PFS on the Momentum factor, by 34 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 PFS?
PFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PFS 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 PFS?
PFS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 0.1% vs 28.8%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 11%.
Is PFS's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
PFS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 26 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 PFS 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to PFS's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; PFS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 PFS?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 PFS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and PFS 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.