INTC vs RGLD Stock Comparison
Compare INTC and RGLD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between INTC and RGLD?
RGLD leads the current stock comparison as Royal Gold, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Royal Gold, Inc.
RGLD leads
RGLD leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support RGLD.
Intel Corp.
Royal Gold, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RGLD over INTC, 55 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. RGLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. RGLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RGLD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability.
Compare Intel Corp. and Royal Gold, 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 RGLD 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 71RGLD +32
- Risk Resilience28 vs 60RGLD +32
- Momentum77 vs 56INTC +21
- Value30 vs 36RGLD +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor RGLD. RGLD’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; INTC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
The central trade-off
RGLD (Royal Gold, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 58.9% against 42%.
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
RGLDRGLD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RGLDRGLD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RGLDRGLD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
RGLDRGLD on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
RGLDRGLD 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 | RGLD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.1% | +21.4% | RGLD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +136.1% | +14.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RGLD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RGLD | 44 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | RGLDon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs -4%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -16%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 11.5%; gross margin 38.9% vs 66.8% — RGLD takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RGLD | Value 30 vs 36 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs 12.7%; vs 200-day 33.4% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | RGLD | Risk Resilience 28 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | RGLD | Target upside -0.1% vs 21.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and RGLD 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 RGLD.
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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to RGLD's edge.
- 2INTC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3RGLD starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
RGLD leads on balance| Metric | INTC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | -4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -16% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 66.8% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 63.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 11.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.05 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.4% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | 9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.3% | 28.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 109.1% | -7.9% |
| Year to date | 171.9% | 14.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 309.8% | 36.2% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | RGLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.3 | 51.4 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 36.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | 12.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.4% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.9% | 42% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or RGLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RGLD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against INTC's 44. 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 INTC or RGLD the better buy right now?
RGLD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 RGLD over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RGLD leads Quality by 32 points; RGLD leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; INTC leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or RGLD?
Analyst price targets imply -0.1% upside for INTC and +21.4% for RGLD, so the Street currently favors RGLD. 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 RGLD?
RGLD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RGLD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 RGLD?
RGLD 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 RGLD?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 21 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 RGLD?
RGLD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RGLD on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 RGLD?
RGLD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 66.8%; operating margin 0.1% vs 63.1%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 11.5%.
What would change the INTC vs RGLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to RGLD's edge; INTC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; RGLD starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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.
Compare INTC and RGLD 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.