INTC vs NWL Stock Comparison
NWL currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 41 vs 33. The clearest difference is value, while INTC has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between INTC and NWL?
NWL leads the current stock comparison as Newell Brands Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Newell Brands Inc.
NWL leads
NWL leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors INTC on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support NWL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
Newell Brands Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NWL over INTC, 41 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. NWL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while INTC holds the stronger quality profile. NWL 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 NWL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NWL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and Newell Brands 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 NWL 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.
- Value30 vs 68NWL +38
- Quality39 vs 16INTC +23
- Risk Resilience28 vs 41NWL +13
- Momentum34 vs 37Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor NWL. NWL’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; INTC keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
NWL's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and NWL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NWL (Newell Brands Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 52.8% against 42.6%.
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
NWLNWL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NWLNWL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NWLNWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
NWLNWL on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 NWL, analyst targets favor INTC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | INTC | NWL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +76.7% | +15.3% | INTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +107.6% | +125.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 25 | 5 | 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 NWL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NWL | 33 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | NWLon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs 28.7%; EPS growth -195.9% vs 4.2%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs -8.9%; gross margin 38.9% vs 35.5% — NWL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NWL | Value 30 vs 68 |
| Technicals | NWL | Price vs 50-day -35.3% vs -9.3%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs 7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | NWL | Risk Resilience 28 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | INTC | Target upside 76.7% vs 15.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and NWL 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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 NWL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28NWL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NWL +8
- 33 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- NWL +12
- 31 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- NWL +5
- 40 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- NWL +14
- 32 vs 46
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when NWL 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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NWL
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NWL 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 -28.58%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.97%, 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 Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWL's edge.
- 2INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3NWL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
NWL leads on balance| Metric | INTC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 28.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | 4.2% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 35.5% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 8.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | -8.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 2.26 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.8% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -20.5% | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.8% | 1.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.3% | 32.2% |
| Year to date | 158.9% | 40.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 149.6% | 4.6% |
Technicals
NWL has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.1 | 36 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 11.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -35.3% | -9.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | 7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 52.8% | 42.6% |
Risk
NWL is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 1.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.41 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.52 | 0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -37.8% |
| Current drawdown | -32.2% | -18.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.9% | 59.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or NWL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NWL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 41 against INTC's 33. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. INTC is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 INTC or NWL the better buy right now?
NWL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 NWL over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NWL leads Value by 38 points; INTC leads Quality by 23 points; NWL leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or NWL?
Analyst price targets imply +76.7% upside for INTC and +15.3% for NWL, so the Street currently favors INTC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NWL. 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 NWL?
NWL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 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 NWL?
NWL 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 NWL?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 NWL?
NWL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NWL on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 NWL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.9% vs 35.5%; operating margin 0.1% vs 8.1%; ttm roe -10.8% vs -8.9%. Each name leads 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 NWL's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
NWL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when NWL moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the INTC vs NWL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWL's edge; INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; NWL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 NWL?
INTC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NWL: 2 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 NWL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and NWL 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.