INTC vs SOUN Stock Comparison
SOUN currently leads INTC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 37 vs 33. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while INTC has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between INTC and SOUN?
SOUN leads the current stock comparison as SoundHound AI, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs SoundHound AI, Inc.
SOUN leads
SOUN leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SOUN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
SoundHound AI, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SOUN over INTC, 37 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. SOUN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. SOUN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SOUN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SOUN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and SoundHound AI, 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 SOUN 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 40SOUN +12
- Momentum34 vs 25INTC +9
- Quality39 vs 47SOUN +8
- Value30 vs 35SOUN +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SOUN. SOUN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; INTC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
SOUN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and SOUN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SOUN (SoundHound AI, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
SOUNSOUN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SOUNSOUN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SOUNSOUN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
SOUNSOUN on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
SOUNSOUN 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 | SOUN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +76.7% | +137% | SOUN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +107.6% | +60% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 25 | 3 | 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 SOUN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SOUN | 33 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 18.8% vs 40.1%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -66.7%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs -30.2%; gross margin 38.9% vs 37.4% |
| Valuation | SOUN | Value 30 vs 35 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -35.3% vs -28.5%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs -38.8% |
| Risk Resilience | SOUN | Risk Resilience 28 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | SOUN | Target upside 76.7% vs 137% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and SOUN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 SOUN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30SOUN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SOUN +4
- 33 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- SOUN +6
- 31 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- SOUN +4
- 34 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- SOUN +8
- 34 vs 42
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when INTC moved ahead of SOUN.
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
Only INTC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.44%)
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SOUN
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (22.80%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SOUN 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 -28.58%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.21%, AIQ 0 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 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to SOUN's edge.
- 2INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3SOUN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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
Split| Metric | INTC | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 40.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -66.7% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 37.4% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | -89.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | -30.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.01 |
Performance
INTC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.8% | -3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -20.5% | -26.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.8% | -27.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.3% | -42.4% |
| Year to date | 158.9% | -55.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 149.6% | -75.3% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.1 | 26.5 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 47 |
| Price vs 50-day | -35.3% | -28.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | -38.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 52.8% | 54.7% |
Risk
SOUN is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 3.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.41 | -1.72 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.52 | -3.1 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -76.6% |
| Current drawdown | -32.2% | -75.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.9% | 69.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or SOUN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SOUN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 37 against INTC's 33. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 SOUN the better buy right now?
SOUN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SOUN over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SOUN leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; INTC leads Momentum by 9 points; SOUN leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or SOUN?
Analyst price targets imply +76.7% upside for INTC and +137% for SOUN, so the Street currently favors SOUN. 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 SOUN?
SOUN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SOUN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 SOUN?
SOUN 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 SOUN?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 SOUN?
SOUN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SOUN on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 SOUN?
INTC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 37.4%; operating margin 0.1% vs -89.7%; ttm roe -10.8% vs -30.2%.
Is SOUN's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
SOUN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when INTC moved ahead of SOUN.
What would change the INTC vs SOUN 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 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to SOUN's edge; INTC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; SOUN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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 SOUN?
INTC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SOUN: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 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 SOUN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and SOUN 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.