INTC vs TMF Stock Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF
TMF leads
TMF leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support TMF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TMF over INTC, 44 versus 33 as of Sep 5, 2026. TMF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. TMF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TMF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. TMF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare INTC and TMF 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.
- Quality30%39 vs 60TMF +21
- Momentum25%33 vs 43TMF +10
- Value30%30 vs 36TMF +6
- Risk Resilience15%30 vs 31Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor TMF. TMF’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
TMF'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 TMF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TMF (Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 45.1% against 30.6%.
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
TMFTMF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
TMFTMF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
TMFTMF on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
TMFTMF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | INTC | TMF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +135.8% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TMF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TMF | 33 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TMF | Value 30 vs 36 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -4.2%; vs 200-day 24.1% vs -14.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 30 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and TMF 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 moderate at 11 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TMF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3TMF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TMF +11
- 33 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- TMF +11
- 34 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- TMF +5
- 38 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- TMF +4
- 45 vs 49
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when TMF 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (37.24%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.65%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.51%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
TMF 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 +4.51%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.36%, 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 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMF's edge.
- 2INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TMF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | — |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | — |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.6 | 51.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.1% | -14.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.1% | 30.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | INTC | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.93 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.04 | -0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.79 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -32.4% |
| Current drawdown | -35% | -30.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.1% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or TMF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TMF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 44 against INTC's 33. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 TMF the better buy right now?
TMF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TMF over INTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TMF leads Quality by 21 points; TMF leads Momentum by 10 points; TMF leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or TMF?
Analyst price targets imply +7.6% upside for INTC and not covered for TMF. 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 TMF?
TMF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TMF 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 TMF?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 TMF?
TMF on the Momentum factor, by 10 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 TMF?
TMF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TMF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is INTC more profitable than TMF?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is TMF's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
TMF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when TMF moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the INTC vs TMF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMF's edge; INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TMF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about INTC and TMF?
INTC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TMF: 1 bullish / 2 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 TMF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.