INTC vs NTAP Stock Comparison
NTAP currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 31. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between INTC and NTAP?
NTAP leads the current stock comparison as NetApp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs NetApp, Inc.
NTAP leads
NTAP leads by 27 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 23 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support NTAP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
NetApp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NTAP over INTC, 58 versus 31 as of Oct 24, 2026. NTAP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. NTAP 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 NTAP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NTAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 27 points over 30 sessions. NTAP 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 NetApp, 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 NTAP 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.
- Quality39 vs 70NTAP +31
- Value30 vs 61NTAP +31
- Momentum23 vs 49NTAP +26
- Risk Resilience28 vs 42NTAP +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor NTAP. NTAP’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
NTAP's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and NTAP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NTAP (NetApp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality 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
NTAPNTAP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NTAPNTAP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NTAPNTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
NTAPNTAP on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
NTAPNTAP on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 NTAP, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | INTC | NTAP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +34.4% | -4.3% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +115.5% | +72.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 10 | 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 NTAP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NTAP | 31 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | NTAPon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs 13.7%; EPS growth -195.9% vs 21.3%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 114.2%; gross margin 38.9% vs 70.7% — NTAP takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NTAP | Value 30 vs 61 |
| Technicals | NTAP | Price vs 50-day -14.8% vs 5.9%; vs 200-day 1.9% vs 46.3% |
| Risk Resilience | NTAP | Risk Resilience 28 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 34.4% vs -4.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and NTAP 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 27 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 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 NTAP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23NTAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 27 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NTAP +27
- 31 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- NTAP +33
- 30 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- NTAP +23
- 45 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- NTAP +27
- 37 vs 64
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NTAP
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NTAP 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.72%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.4%, 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 Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTAP's edge.
- 2INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3NTAP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
NTAP leads on balance| Metric | INTC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | 21.3% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 24.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 114.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 2.02 |
Performance
NTAP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.2% | 5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -29.3% | 7.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.1% | 26.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.8% | 98.2% |
| Year to date | 135.7% | 101.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 128.1% | 81% |
Technicals
NTAP has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.2 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 26.6 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.8% | 5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.9% | 46.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.4% | 48.2% |
Risk
NTAP is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.1 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.43 | 1.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.58 | 2.57 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -21.2% |
| Current drawdown | -38.3% | -9.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 78.2% | 45.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or NTAP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NTAP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 24, 2026, scoring 58 against INTC's 31. The edge comes from quality 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 NTAP the better buy right now?
NTAP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 24, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 NTAP over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NTAP leads Quality by 31 points; NTAP leads Value by 31 points; NTAP leads Momentum by 26 points. NTAP 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 NTAP?
Analyst price targets imply +34.4% upside for INTC and -4.3% for NTAP, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NTAP. 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 NTAP?
NTAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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 NTAP?
NTAP 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 NTAP?
NTAP on the Momentum factor, by 26 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 NTAP?
NTAP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NTAP on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 NTAP?
NTAP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 70.7%; operating margin 0.1% vs 24.1%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 114.2%.
Is NTAP's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
NTAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 27 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-23. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the INTC vs NTAP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to NTAP's edge; INTC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; NTAP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 NTAP?
INTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NTAP: 3 bullish / 1 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 NTAP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and NTAP 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.