INTU vs NTNX Stock Comparison
Compare INTU and NTNX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between INTU and NTNX?
INTU leads the current stock comparison as Intuit Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intuit Inc. vs Nutanix, Inc.
INTU leads
INTU leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support INTU.
Intuit Inc.
Nutanix, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INTU over NTNX, 61 versus 47 as of Sep 9, 2026. INTU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while NTNX holds the stronger momentum profile. INTU also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTU today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. INTU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intuit Inc. and Nutanix, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare INTU and NTNX 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.
- Quality77 vs 30INTU +47
- Momentum40 vs 68NTNX +28
- Value67 vs 45INTU +22
- Risk Resilience49 vs 51Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor INTU. INTU’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; NTNX keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-07, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-06.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
INTU's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTU and NTNX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INTU (Intuit Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
NTNX (Nutanix, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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
INTUINTU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NTNXNTNX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
INTUINTU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
NTNXNTNX on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
NTNXNTNX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
INTUINTU on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | INTU | NTNX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.8% | +1.2% | INTU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +97% | +68.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INTU | 61 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | NTNXon balance | revenue growth -49.1% vs 7.7%; EPS growth -87.9% vs 16.4%; TTM ROE 23.4% vs -4%; gross margin 81.3% vs 86.8%; operating margin 27.4% vs 9.8% — NTNX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | INTU | Value 67 vs 45 |
| Technicals | NTNX | Price vs 50-day 1% vs 12.3%; vs 200-day -22.1% vs 39.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 49 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | INTU | Target upside 23.8% vs 1.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTU and NTNX 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 INTU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 28 – Sep 7INTU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INTU +14
- 61 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- INTU +17
- 61 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- INTU +12
- 71 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- INTU +9
- 65 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 8 when INTU moved ahead of NTNX.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (35.35%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.67%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.08%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
NTNX 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 -4.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.84%, 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.
- 1NTNX closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTU's edge.
- 2NTNX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3INTU starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
NTNX leads on balance| Metric | INTU | NTNX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -49.1% | 7.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -87.9% | 16.4% |
| Gross margin | 81.3% | 86.8% |
| Operating margin | 27.4% | 9.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.4% | -4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.44 | 2.16 |
Performance
NTNX leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | INTU | NTNX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.1% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.3% | 8.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.1% | 26.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.9% | 70.9% |
| Year to date | -49.8% | 31.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -50.2% | 0.2% |
Technicals
NTNX has the stronger structure| Metric | INTU | NTNX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.6 | 58.5 |
| ADX (14) | 18.1 | 46.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | 12.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.1% | 39.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.6% | 37.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | INTU | NTNX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.27 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.27 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.6 | 0.18 |
| Max drawdown | -63.7% | -57.6% |
| Current drawdown | -52.6% | -16.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.5% | 47.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTU or NTNX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INTU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 9, 2026, scoring 61 against NTNX's 47. The edge comes from quality and value. NTNX is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 INTU or NTNX the better buy right now?
INTU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 9, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor INTU over NTNX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTU leads Quality by 47 points; NTNX leads Momentum by 28 points; INTU leads Value by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTU or NTNX?
Analyst price targets imply +23.8% upside for INTU and +1.2% for NTNX, so the Street currently favors INTU. 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, INTU or NTNX?
INTU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. INTU 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, INTU or NTNX?
NTNX 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, INTU or NTNX?
NTNX on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, INTU or NTNX?
NTNX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NTNX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is INTU more profitable than NTNX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 81.3% vs 86.8%; operating margin 27.4% vs 9.8%; ttm roe 23.4% vs -4%. INTU leads on two measures and NTNX 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 INTU's lead over NTNX getting stronger or weaker?
INTU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-28 and 2026-09-07. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-08, when INTU moved ahead of NTNX.
What would change the INTU vs NTNX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTNX closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTU's edge; NTNX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; INTU starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 INTU and NTNX?
INTU: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. NTNX: 3 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 INTU is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NTNX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTU and NTNX with others
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.