INTC vs WY Stock Comparison
Compare INTC and WY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between INTC and WY?
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 Weyerhaeuser Company
INTC leads
INTC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from WY. Wall Street currently favors WY on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support INTC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Intel Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INTC over WY, 44 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. INTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while WY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. INTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WY. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. INTC lead: Reversed — WY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; INTC now leads by 6.
Compare Intel Corp. and Weyerhaeuser Company 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 WY 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 24INTC +53
- Risk Resilience28 vs 67WY +39
- Value30 vs 41WY +11
- Quality39 vs 32INTC +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor INTC. INTC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; WY keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
INTC's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INTC and WY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INTC (Intel Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
WY (Weyerhaeuser Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
WYWY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WYWY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 53 points.
Lower downside
WYWY on Risk Resilience, by 39 points.
Analyst upside
WYWY 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 WY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | INTC | WY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.1% | +31.5% | WY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +136.1% | +6.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 2 | 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
2 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 38 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 18.8% vs 8.1%; EPS growth -195.9% vs 4.5%; TTM ROE -10.8% vs 5%; gross margin 38.9% vs 13.2% |
| Valuation | WY | Value 30 vs 41 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -8.1%; vs 200-day 33.4% vs -7.1% |
| Risk Resilience | WY | Risk Resilience 28 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | WY | Target upside -0.1% vs 31.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INTC and WY 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 6 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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: Reversed — WY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; INTC now leads by 6.
- Today
- INTC +6
- 44 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- WY +4
- 35 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- WY +10
- 38 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- WY +6
- 33 vs 39
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when INTC moved ahead of WY.
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
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
WY 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.32%, 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.
- 1WY closes the Momentum gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge.
- 2WY'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
Split| Metric | INTC | WY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | 4.5% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 13.2% |
| Operating margin | 0.1% | 8.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -10.8% | 5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.57 |
Performance
INTC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | INTC | WY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.4% | -5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -11.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.3% | -9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 109.1% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | 171.9% | -7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 309.8% | -15.1% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | INTC | WY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.3 | 14.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -8.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.4% | -7.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.9% | 22.2% |
Risk
WY is the more resilient| Metric | INTC | WY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.89 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.12 | -0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.98 | -0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -18.9% |
| Current drawdown | -28.8% | -18.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.9% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INTC or WY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INTC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against WY's 38. The edge comes from momentum and quality. WY is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 WY the better buy right now?
INTC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor INTC over WY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTC leads Momentum by 53 points; WY leads Risk Resilience by 39 points; WY leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INTC or WY?
Analyst price targets imply -0.1% upside for INTC and +31.5% for WY, so the Street currently favors WY. 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 WY?
WY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 WY?
WY 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 WY?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 53 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 WY?
WY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WY on Risk Resilience, by 39 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 WY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.9% vs 13.2%; operating margin 0.1% vs 8.4%; ttm roe -10.8% vs 5%. 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 WY getting stronger or weaker?
INTC lead: Reversed — WY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; INTC now leads by 6. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when INTC moved ahead of WY.
What would change the INTC vs WY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WY closes the Momentum gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTC's edge; WY'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 WY?
INTC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WY: 2 bullish / 4 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 WY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare INTC and WY 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.