ARLO vs MSFT Stock Comparison
ARLO currently leads MSFT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 65. The clearest difference is value, while MSFT has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ARLO and MSFT?
ARLO leads the current stock comparison as Arlo Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arlo Technologies, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
ARLO leads
ARLO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from MSFT.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ARLO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Arlo Technologies, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ARLO over MSFT, 67 versus 65 as of Oct 31, 2026. ARLO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MSFT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ARLO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARLO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ARLO lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ARLO now leads by 2.
Compare Arlo Technologies, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ARLO and MSFT 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 Resilience41 vs 69MSFT +28
- Value70 vs 44ARLO +26
- Quality71 vs 89MSFT +18
- Momentum74 vs 60ARLO +14
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ARLO. ARLO’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; MSFT keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ARLO's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARLO and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ARLO (Arlo Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
ARLOARLO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MSFTMSFT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ARLOARLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
ARLOARLO on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
ARLOARLO 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 | ARLO | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.4% | +10.3% | ARLO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | +56.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 23 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARLO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 67 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | MSFT | revenue growth 3.7% vs 8.6%; EPS growth -78.6% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 21.2% vs 33.2%; gross margin 46% vs 67.9%; operating margin 2.7% vs 46.8% |
| Valuation | ARLO | Value 70 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 12.1% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 2% vs 21.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 41 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | ARLO | Target upside 24.4% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARLO and MSFT 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 ARLO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ARLO lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ARLO now leads by 2.
- Today
- ARLO +2
- 67 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 64 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +16
- 55 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +6
- 55 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when ARLO moved ahead of MSFT.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only ARLO
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.64%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.74%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MSFT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.89%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ARLO 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.55%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1MSFT closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARLO's edge.
- 2MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ARLO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 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
MSFT leads on balance| Metric | ARLO | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.7% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -78.6% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 46% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 2.7% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.2% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 0.29 |
Performance
MSFT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ARLO | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 12.3% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10% | 3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.7% | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.7% | 25.1% |
| Year to date | -2.5% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -29.8% | 1.4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | ARLO | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.2 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 10 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 12.1% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2% | 21.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 53.5% | 19.5% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | ARLO | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.39 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.46 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -41.9% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -29.5% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.8% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARLO or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ARLO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 67 against MSFT's 65. The edge comes from value and momentum. MSFT 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 ARLO or MSFT the better buy right now?
ARLO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ARLO over MSFT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; ARLO leads Value by 26 points; MSFT leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARLO or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply +24.4% upside for ARLO and +10.3% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors ARLO. 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, ARLO or MSFT?
ARLO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ARLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, ARLO or MSFT?
MSFT 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, ARLO or MSFT?
ARLO on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, ARLO or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 ARLO more profitable than MSFT?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 46% vs 67.9%; operating margin 2.7% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 21.2% vs 33.2%.
Is ARLO's lead over MSFT getting stronger or weaker?
ARLO lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ARLO now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-27, when ARLO moved ahead of MSFT.
What would change the ARLO vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSFT closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARLO's edge; MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ARLO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; 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 ARLO and MSFT?
ARLO: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MSFT: 3 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 ARLO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARLO and MSFT 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.