LLY vs INTC Stock Comparison
Eli Lilly and Company vs Intel Corp.
LLY leads
LLY leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LLY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eli Lilly and Company
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LLY over INTC, 45 versus 33 as of Sep 5, 2026. LLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. LLY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LLY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. LLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eli Lilly and Company and Intel Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare LLY and INTC 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.
- Quality30%76 vs 39LLY +37
- Risk Resilience15%47 vs 30LLY +17
- Momentum25%28 vs 33INTC +5
- Value30%26 vs 30INTC +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LLY. LLY’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; INTC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LLY's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LLY and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LLY (Eli Lilly and Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 45.1% against 33.3%.
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
LLYLLY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
LLYLLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
INTCINTC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
LLYLLY on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
LLYLLY 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 | LLY | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16% | +7.6% | LLY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | +135.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 27 | 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 LLY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LLY | 45 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | LLYon balance | revenue growth 16% vs 18.8%; EPS growth -3.9% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 92.6% vs -10.8%; gross margin 84% vs 38.9% — LLY takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | INTC | Value 26 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day 9.1% vs 24.1% |
| Risk Resilience | LLY | Risk Resilience 47 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | LLY | Target upside 16% vs 7.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LLY and INTC 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 LLY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3LLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LLY +12
- 45 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- LLY +9
- 43 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- LLY +19
- 57 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- LLY +14
- 59 vs 45
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Apr 30 when LLY 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.08%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (37.24%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.65%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LLY 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.88%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.51%, 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 Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to LLY's edge.
- 2INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3LLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate LLY's advantage entirely.
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
LLY leads on balance| Metric | LLY | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3.9% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 84% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 43.9% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 92.6% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.62 | 0.58 |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | LLY | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.9 | 30.6 |
| ADX (14) | 14.7 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.1% | 24.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.3% | 45.1% |
Risk
LLY is the more resilient| Metric | LLY | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.31 | 2.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 2.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.54 | 3.79 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -35% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.9% | 79.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LLY or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LLY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 45 against INTC's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. INTC 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 LLY or INTC the better buy right now?
LLY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LLY over INTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. LLY leads Quality by 37 points; LLY leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; INTC leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LLY or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +16% upside for LLY and +7.6% for INTC, so the Street currently favors LLY. 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, LLY or INTC?
INTC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. INTC 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, LLY or INTC?
LLY 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, LLY or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, LLY or INTC?
LLY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LLY on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 LLY more profitable than INTC?
LLY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 84% vs 38.9%; operating margin 43.9% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 92.6% vs -10.8%.
Is LLY's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
LLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-04-30, when LLY moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the LLY vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to LLY's edge; INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; LLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate LLY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LLY and INTC?
LLY: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. INTC: 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 LLY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LLY and INTC 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.