INTC vs TYL Stock Comparison
Compare INTC and TYL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between INTC and TYL?
TYL leads the current stock comparison as Tyler Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Tyler Technologies, Inc.
TYL leads
TYL leads by 26 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TYL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
Tyler Technologies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TYL over INTC, 61 versus 35 as of Sep 6, 2026. TYL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. TYL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TYL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. TYL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 26 points over 30 sessions. TYL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Intel Corp. and Tyler Technologies, 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 TYL 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.
- Momentum25%40 vs 89TYL +49
- Risk Resilience15%29 vs 53TYL +24
- Value30%30 vs 49TYL +19
- Quality30%39 vs 53TYL +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TYL. TYL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TYL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and TYL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TYL (Tyler Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 37%.
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
TYLTYL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TYLTYL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TYLTYL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
TYLTYL on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
TYLTYL on Risk Resilience, by 24 points.
Analyst upside
TYLTYL 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 | TYL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.4% | +12.5% | TYL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +136.1% | +28.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 8 | 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 TYL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TYL | 35 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | TYLon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs 5.1%; EPS growth -195.9% vs 18.4%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 9.3%; gross margin 38.9% vs 46.6% — TYL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TYL | Value 30 vs 49 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs 11.9%; vs 200-day 29.2% vs 1.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TYL | Risk Resilience 29 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | TYL | Target upside 7.4% vs 12.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and TYL 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 wide at 26 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 TYL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5TYL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 26 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TYL +26
- 35 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- TYL +29
- 34 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- TYL +15
- 41 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- TYL +19
- 40 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 23 when TYL 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 (35.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.34%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.94%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.87%)
TYL 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -4.02%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to TYL's edge.
- 2INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TYL'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
TYL leads on balance| Metric | INTC | TYL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 5.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | 18.4% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 46.6% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 15.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 9.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.48 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | TYL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.1% | -3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | 16.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.4% | 16.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 120.6% | -2.8% |
| Year to date | 159.6% | -19.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 299.2% | -34.3% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | TYL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.6 | 71.8 |
| ADX (14) | 14.2 | 34 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | 11.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.2% | 1.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.7% | 37% |
Risk
TYL is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | TYL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.91 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.06 | -0.92 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.84 | -1.18 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -51.4% |
| Current drawdown | -32% | -35.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.2% | 40.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or TYL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TYL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 61 against INTC's 35. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 TYL the better buy right now?
TYL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 TYL over INTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TYL leads Momentum by 49 points; TYL leads Risk Resilience by 24 points; TYL leads Value by 19 points. TYL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by INTC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or TYL?
Analyst price targets imply +7.4% upside for INTC and +12.5% for TYL, so the Street currently favors TYL. 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 TYL?
TYL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TYL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 TYL?
TYL 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 TYL?
TYL on the Momentum factor, by 49 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 TYL?
TYL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TYL on Risk Resilience, by 24 points. 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 TYL?
TYL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 46.6%; operating margin 0.1% vs 15.1%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 9.3%.
Is TYL's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
TYL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 26 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-23, when TYL moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the INTC vs TYL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to TYL's edge; INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TYL'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 TYL?
INTC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TYL: 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 TYL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and TYL with others
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.