INTC vs VC Stock Comparison
Compare INTC and VC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between INTC and VC?
VC leads the current stock comparison as Visteon Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs Visteon Corporation
VC leads
VC leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support VC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intel Corp.
Visteon Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VC over INTC, 51 versus 35 as of Sep 6, 2026. VC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. VC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and Visteon Corporation 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 VC 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.
- Value30%30 vs 66VC +36
- Risk Resilience15%29 vs 65VC +36
- Momentum25%40 vs 35INTC +5
- Quality30%39 vs 41Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor VC. VC’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; INTC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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.
VC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and VC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VC (Visteon Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.7% against 22.1%.
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
VCVC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
VCVC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VCVC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
VCVC on Risk Resilience, by 36 points.
Analyst upside
VCVC 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 | VC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.4% | +22.2% | VC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +136.1% | +15.9% | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VC | 35 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | VCon balance | EPS growth -195.9% vs 57.8%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 9.7%; gross margin 38.9% vs 12.8% — VC takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | VC | Value 30 vs 66 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -1.4%; vs 200-day 29.2% vs 0.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VC | Risk Resilience 29 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | VC | Target upside 7.4% vs 22.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and VC 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 16 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 narrowing. (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)
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 VC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5VC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VC +16
- 35 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- VC +15
- 34 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- VC +19
- 41 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- VC +4
- 40 vs 44
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 1 when VC 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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.73%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VC 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 +0.36%, 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 Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to VC's edge.
- 2INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate VC's advantage entirely.
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
VC leads on balance| Metric | INTC | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | 57.8% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 12.8% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 7.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 9.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.27 |
Performance
INTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | VC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.1% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.4% | -12.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 120.6% | 13.6% |
| Year to date | 159.6% | 7.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 299.2% | -16.4% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | VC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.6 | 34.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14.2 | 12.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.2% | 0.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.7% | 22.1% |
Risk
VC is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.91 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.06 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.84 | -0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -34.4% |
| Current drawdown | -32% | -20.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.2% | 38.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or VC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 51 against INTC's 35. The edge comes from value 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 VC the better buy right now?
VC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 VC over INTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VC leads Value by 36 points; VC leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; INTC leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or VC?
Analyst price targets imply +7.4% upside for INTC and +22.2% for VC, so the Street currently favors VC. 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 VC?
VC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 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 VC?
VC 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 VC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 VC?
VC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VC on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 VC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.9% vs 12.8%; operating margin 0.1% vs 7.4%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 9.7%. 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 VC's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
VC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 16 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-01, when VC moved ahead of INTC.
What would change the INTC vs VC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to VC's edge; INTC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; VC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate VC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about INTC and VC?
INTC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. VC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 VC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and VC 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.