INTC vs WULF Stock Comparison
Compare INTC and WULF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between INTC and WULF?
INTC leads the current stock comparison as Intel Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intel Corp. vs TeraWulf Inc.
INTC leads
INTC leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors WULF on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support INTC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Intel Corp.
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INTC over WULF, 44 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. INTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while WULF holds the stronger value profile. INTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WULF. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. INTC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intel Corp. and TeraWulf 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 WULF 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.
- Momentum77 vs 41INTC +36
- Risk Resilience28 vs 13INTC +15
- Quality39 vs 30INTC +9
- Value30 vs 34WULF +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor INTC. INTC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; WULF keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.09%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
INTC'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 WULF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INTC (Intel Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 87.5% against 58.9%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
INTCINTC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WULFWULF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WULFWULF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
INTCINTC on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
WULFWULF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors INTC, analyst targets favor WULF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | INTC | WULF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.1% | +130.7% | WULF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +136.1% | +121.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INTC | 44 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | WULFon balance | revenue growth 18.8% vs 31.6%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -92.1%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs -17.1%; gross margin 38.9% vs 69.3% — WULF takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WULF | Value 30 vs 34 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 33.4% vs -10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | INTC | Risk Resilience 28 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | WULF | Target upside -0.1% vs 130.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and WULF 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 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 INTC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10INTC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INTC +13
- 44 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- INTC +5
- 35 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- INTC +11
- 38 vs 27
- 90 sessions ago
- INTC +6
- 33 vs 27
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 11 when INTC moved ahead of WULF.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
WULF is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.61%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.72%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1WULF closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge.
- 2WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3INTC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
WULF leads on balance| Metric | INTC | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 31.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -92.1% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | -228.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | -17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 35.56 |
Performance
INTC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.4% | 8.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.3% | -30.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 109.1% | 6% |
| Year to date | 171.9% | 40.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 309.8% | 75.4% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.3 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.4% | -10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.9% | 87.5% |
Risk
INTC is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.89 | 3.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.12 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.98 | 1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -49.5% |
| Current drawdown | -28.8% | -44.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.9% | 91.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -8.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or WULF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INTC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against WULF's 31. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. WULF is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 WULF the better buy right now?
INTC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 INTC over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTC leads Momentum by 36 points; INTC leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; INTC leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or WULF?
Analyst price targets imply -0.1% upside for INTC and +130.7% for WULF, so the Street currently favors WULF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors INTC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, INTC or WULF?
WULF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WULF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 WULF?
WULF 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 WULF?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 36 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 WULF?
INTC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. INTC on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 WULF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.9% vs 69.3%; operating margin 0.1% vs -228.5%; ttm roe -10.8% vs -17.1%. 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 INTC's lead over WULF getting stronger or weaker?
INTC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-11, when INTC moved ahead of WULF.
What would change the INTC vs WULF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WULF closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge; WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; INTC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 WULF?
INTC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WULF: 1 bullish / 2 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 WULF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and WULF 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.