INTC vs KBWY Stock Comparison
KBWY currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 30. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between INTC and KBWY?
KBWY leads the current stock comparison as Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF
KBWY leads
KBWY leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support KBWY, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Intel Corp.
Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KBWY over INTC, 46 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. KBWY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. KBWY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor KBWY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. KBWY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT 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 KBWY 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 74KBWY +45
- Value30 vs 46KBWY +16
- Momentum21 vs 35KBWY +14
- Quality39 vs 42Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor KBWY. KBWY’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 +10
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
KBWY'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 KBWY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KBWY (Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT 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 20.4%.
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
KBWYKBWY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
KBWYKBWY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
KBWYKBWY on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
KBWYKBWY on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 | KBWY | 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 KBWY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KBWY | 30 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | KBWY | Value 30 vs 46 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -7.4%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs -4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | KBWY | Risk Resilience 29 vs 74 |
| 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 KBWY 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 16 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 KBWY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20KBWY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KBWY +16
- 30 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- KBWY +15
- 30 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 43 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when KBWY 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
- 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 / 1 neutral
Only KBWY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.41%, 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 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to KBWY's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3KBWY'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
Split| Metric | INTC | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| 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
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -13.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | -2.4% |
| Year to date | 148.5% | 5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 148.9% | 5.3% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.4 | 41.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 53.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -7.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | -4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 20.4% |
Risk
KBWY is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.73 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -17.4% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -15.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 16.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or KBWY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KBWY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 46 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 KBWY the better buy right now?
KBWY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 4 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 KBWY over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KBWY leads Risk Resilience by 45 points; KBWY leads Value by 16 points; KBWY leads Momentum by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or KBWY?
Analyst price targets imply +18.2% upside for INTC and not covered for KBWY. 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 KBWY?
KBWY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KBWY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 KBWY?
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 KBWY?
KBWY on the Momentum factor, by 14 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 KBWY?
KBWY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KBWY on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 KBWY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is KBWY's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
KBWY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 45 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-09-06 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when KBWY moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the INTC vs KBWY 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 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to KBWY's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; KBWY'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 KBWY?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KBWY: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 KBWY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, 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.