INTC vs PGNY Stock Comparison
Compare INTC and PGNY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between INTC and PGNY?
PGNY leads the current stock comparison as Progyny, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Progyny, Inc.
PGNY leads
PGNY leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PGNY, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Intel Corp.
Progyny, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PGNY over INTC, 57 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. PGNY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. PGNY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PGNY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. PGNY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and Progyny, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare INTC and PGNY 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 Resilience28 vs 70PGNY +42
- Value30 vs 51PGNY +21
- Momentum77 vs 58INTC +19
- Quality39 vs 56PGNY +17
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PGNY. PGNY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; INTC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
PGNY's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and PGNY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PGNY (Progyny, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 58.9% against 31.1%.
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
PGNYPGNY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PGNYPGNY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PGNYPGNY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
PGNYPGNY on Risk Resilience, by 42 points.
Analyst upside
PGNYPGNY 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 | INTC | PGNY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.1% | +25.6% | PGNY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +136.1% | +37.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 7 | 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 PGNY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PGNY | 44 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 18.8% vs 6.7%; EPS growth -195.9% vs 20%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 16%; gross margin 38.9% vs 24.6% |
| Valuation | PGNY | Value 30 vs 51 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day 33.4% vs 12.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PGNY | Risk Resilience 28 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | PGNY | Target upside -0.1% vs 25.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and PGNY 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 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 PGNY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PGNY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PGNY +13
- 44 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- PGNY +21
- 35 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- PGNY +13
- 38 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- PGNY +32
- 33 vs 65
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.42%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.61%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to PGNY's edge.
- 2INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3PGNY'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 | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 6.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | 20% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 24.6% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 8.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 16% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.06 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.4% | 3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | 6.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.3% | 4.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 109.1% | 51.1% |
| Year to date | 171.9% | 5.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 309.8% | 18.5% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.3 | 60.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 35.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.4% | 12.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.9% | 31.1% |
Risk
PGNY is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.89 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.12 | 0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.98 | 0.71 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -42.6% |
| Current drawdown | -28.8% | -16.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.9% | 55.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or PGNY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PGNY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against INTC's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 INTC or PGNY the better buy right now?
PGNY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 PGNY over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PGNY leads Risk Resilience by 42 points; PGNY leads Value by 21 points; INTC leads Momentum by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or PGNY?
Analyst price targets imply -0.1% upside for INTC and +25.6% for PGNY, so the Street currently favors PGNY. 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 PGNY?
PGNY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PGNY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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 PGNY?
PGNY 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 PGNY?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 19 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 PGNY?
PGNY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PGNY on Risk Resilience, by 42 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 PGNY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.9% vs 24.6%; operating margin 0.1% vs 8.6%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 16%. 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 PGNY's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
PGNY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the INTC vs PGNY 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 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to PGNY's edge; INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; PGNY'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 PGNY?
INTC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. PGNY: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on INTC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PGNY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and PGNY 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.