INTC vs MNDY Stock Comparison
MNDY currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 30. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between INTC and MNDY?
MNDY leads the current stock comparison as monday.com Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs monday.com Ltd.
MNDY leads
MNDY leads by 38 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MNDY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
monday.com Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNDY over INTC, 68 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. MNDY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. MNDY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors INTC. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNDY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. MNDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 38 points over 30 sessions. MNDY 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 monday.com Ltd. 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 MNDY 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.
- Momentum21 vs 84MNDY +63
- Value30 vs 65MNDY +35
- Quality39 vs 67MNDY +28
- Risk Resilience29 vs 46MNDY +17
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MNDY. MNDY’s edge is concentrated in momentum 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 +1
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
MNDY's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and MNDY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNDY (monday.com Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
MNDYMNDY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MNDYMNDY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MNDYMNDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
MNDYMNDY on the Momentum factor, by 63 points.
Lower downside
MNDYMNDY on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
INTCINTC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MNDY, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | INTC | MNDY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.2% | +6.9% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +122.9% | +74.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 11 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNDY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MNDY | 30 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | MNDYon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs 3.8%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -86.3%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 12.5%; gross margin 38.9% vs 88.7%; operating margin 0.1% vs 2.9% — MNDY takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MNDY | Value 30 vs 65 |
| Technicals | MNDY | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs 12.7%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs 9.8% |
| Risk Resilience | MNDY | Risk Resilience 29 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 18.2% vs 6.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and MNDY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 38 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 is throwing conflicting signals. (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 MNDY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MNDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 38 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MNDY +38
- 30 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- MNDY +36
- 30 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- MNDY +11
- 43 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- MNDY +18
- 42 vs 60
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
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MNDY
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
MNDY 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.
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.7%, AIQ +1 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 Momentum gap — currently 63 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNDY's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MNDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
MNDY leads on balance| Metric | INTC | MNDY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 3.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -86.3% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 88.7% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 2.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 12.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.38 |
Performance
MNDY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | MNDY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | 19.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | 18.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | 35.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | 43.5% |
| Year to date | 148.5% | -31.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 148.9% | -43% |
Technicals
MNDY has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | MNDY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.4 | 72.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 13.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | 12.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | 9.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 64.5% |
Risk
MNDY is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | MNDY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 0.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | -0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.73 | -0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -71.3% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -50.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.8% | 66.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or MNDY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNDY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against INTC's 30. The edge comes from momentum 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 MNDY the better buy right now?
MNDY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MNDY over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MNDY leads Momentum by 63 points; MNDY leads Value by 35 points; MNDY leads Quality by 28 points. MNDY 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 MNDY?
Analyst price targets imply +18.2% upside for INTC and +6.9% for MNDY, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MNDY. 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 MNDY?
MNDY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MNDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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 MNDY?
MNDY 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 MNDY?
MNDY on the Momentum factor, by 63 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 MNDY?
MNDY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MNDY on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 MNDY?
MNDY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 88.7%; operating margin 0.1% vs 2.9%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 12.5%.
Is MNDY's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
MNDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 38 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 MNDY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Momentum gap — currently 63 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNDY's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MNDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 MNDY?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MNDY: 4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 MNDY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and MNDY 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.