Home Compare INTC vs WAF.DE
Stock Comparison · Industry comparison · Semiconductors

Intel vs Siltronic: Which Stock Looks Stronger in 2026?

The structural profiles are close, with Intel carrying a narrow edge on valuation. Siltronic still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.

The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.

Updated 2026-04-05

Most of the separation is still concentrated in valuation.

INDUSTRY COMPARISON

Both operate in: Semiconductors

This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. INTC and WAF.DE share the same industry classification.

For a similarity-based comparison, see how Intel and Siltronic each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.

Peer-Relative Score
INTC
Intel Corporation
23
Peer-Score
Signal qualityHigh
vs
WAF.DE
Siltronic AG
19
Peer-Score
Signal qualityHigh

Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.

Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.

Dimension spread: INTC vs WAF.DE Profitability 7 0 Stability 30 34 Valuation 46 30 Growth 7 17 INTC WAF.DE
Gap Ranking
#1 Valuation +16
#2 Growth +10
#3 Profitability +7
#4 Stability +4
Price Setup

Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.

Price setup map for INTC and WAF.DE Stronger + cheaper Stronger + richer Weaker + cheaper Weaker + richer INTCWAF.DE Relative valuation Structural strength

The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Intel Corporation.

Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative valuation score where available.

Relative Position vs Comparable Companies
Valuation
Intel Corporation holds the stronger peer position on valuation.
Growth
Both sit in the weaker half on growth, with Intel Corporation still coming out ahead.
Valuation — Dominant Gap
INTC
46
WAF.DE
30
Gap+16in favour of INTC

The peer-relative valuation gap is clear, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.

What keeps the gap from being one-sided

A meaningful counterforce remains in growth, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.

What this means for the comparison

The lead is visible, but pricing still does more of the work than the broader operating profile.

Explore full peer positioning in AssetNext

Break down the INTC vs WAF.DE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.

Explore full breakdown →
Similar valuation-and-growth comparisons

Explore how INTC and WAF.DE each compare against other companies in their peer groups.

Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.

How AssetNext Peer Scores Work

AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.

Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.

Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.