AAPL vs MSTR Stock Comparison
Compare AAPL and MSTR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AAPL and MSTR?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Strategy Inc
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MSTR on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Apple Inc.
Strategy Inc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over MSTR, 64 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. AAPL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MSTR. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 15 points over 30 sessions. AAPL 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 Apple Inc. and Strategy 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 AAPL and MSTR 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.
- Risk Resilience63 vs 37AAPL +26
- Quality80 vs 58AAPL +22
- Momentum77 vs 64AAPL +13
- Value38 vs 34AAPL +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-11, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-10.
Largest factor move: Momentum -29
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
AAPL's lead widened by 9 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and MSTR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
MSTR (Strategy Inc): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 108.9% against 20.6%.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MSTRMSTR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AAPLAAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
MSTRMSTR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AAPL, analyst targets favor MSTR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | MSTR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.2% | +63.3% | MSTR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.2% | +105.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 64 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs -1.6%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs -60.8%; gross margin 48.7% vs 67.6%; operating margin 33.2% vs -16.8% — AAPL takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AAPL | Value 38 vs 34 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 5% vs 23.3%; vs 200-day 10.9% vs -7% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 63 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | MSTR | Target upside -1.2% vs 63.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and MSTR 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +15
- 64 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +9
- 64 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +8
- 57 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +24
- 64 vs 40
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (30.13%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.56%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
MSTR 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.75%, AIQ +7 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.87%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1MSTR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2MSTR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AAPL'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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | -1.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 37.1% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 67.6% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | -16.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | -60.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.15 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AAPL | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | 4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | 35.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.5% | 11.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.9% | -7.1% |
| Year to date | 16% | -15.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.6% | -61% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AAPL | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.4 | 58.5 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 39.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | 23.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.9% | -7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 108.9% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 3.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.29 | -0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.76 | -1.62 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -77.1% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -64.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 79.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -7.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or MSTR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 64 against MSTR's 49. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 AAPL or MSTR the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 AAPL over MSTR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; AAPL leads Quality by 22 points; AAPL leads Momentum by 13 points. AAPL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MSTR 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, AAPL or MSTR?
Analyst price targets imply -1.2% upside for AAPL and +63.3% for MSTR, so the Street currently favors MSTR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AAPL. 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, AAPL or MSTR?
AAPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AAPL 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, AAPL or MSTR?
MSTR 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, AAPL or MSTR?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, AAPL or MSTR?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 AAPL more profitable than MSTR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 67.6%; operating margin 33.2% vs -16.8%; ttm roe 137.2% vs -60.8%. AAPL leads on two measures and MSTR 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 AAPL's lead over MSTR getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AAPL vs MSTR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSTR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; MSTR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AAPL'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 AAPL and MSTR?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. MSTR: 1 bullish / 1 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSTR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and MSTR 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.