BRK.B vs MS Stock Comparison
BRK.B currently leads MS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 85 vs 57. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between BRK.B and MS?
BRK.B leads the current stock comparison as BRK.B, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BRK.B vs Morgan Stanley
BRK.B leads
BRK.B leads by 28 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MS on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support BRK.B, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BRK.B over MS, 85 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. BRK.B's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. BRK.B also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MS. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BRK.B today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. BRK.B lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BRK.B and Morgan Stanley 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 BRK.B and MS 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.
- Momentum89 vs 27BRK.B +62
- Risk Resilience79 vs 72BRK.B +7
3 of 4 evidence groups favor BRK.B. BRK.B’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
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 2 active signals are unchanged.
BRK.B's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BRK.B and MS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BRK.B (BRK.B): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
MS (Morgan Stanley): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 17.9% against 9.5%.
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
BRK.BBRK.B on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
BRK.BBRK.B on the Momentum factor, by 62 points.
Lower downside
BRK.BBRK.B on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
MSMS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BRK.B, analyst targets favor MS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BRK.B | MS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.7% | +21.2% | MS has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +33.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | 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 4 covered evidence groups favor BRK.B. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BRK.B | 85 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | BRK.B | Price vs 50-day 5.9% vs -7.8%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs -7.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BRK.B | Risk Resilience 79 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | MS | Target upside 6.7% vs 21.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BRK.B and MS 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 28 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 BRK.B.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BRK.B lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BRK.B +28
- 85 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- BRK.B +43
- 84 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- BRK.B +13
- 54 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- MS +9
- 44 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when BRK.B moved ahead of MS.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BRK.B
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.14%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MS
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
BRK.B 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.66%, 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.
- 1MS closes the Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to BRK.B's edge.
- 2MS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BRK.B's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | BRK.B | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | -3.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -11.3% |
| Gross margin | — | 60.6% |
| Operating margin | — | 20.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 24.4% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Performance
BRK.B leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BRK.B | MS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.7% | -3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.2% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.3% | -17.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.2% | -4.7% |
| Year to date | 6.1% | 1.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.4% | 12.7% |
Technicals
BRK.B has the stronger structure| Metric | BRK.B | MS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 88 | 34.1 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 41.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.9% | -7.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | -7.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.5% | 17.9% |
Risk
BRK.B is the more resilient| Metric | BRK.B | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.05 | 1.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.62 | 0.67 |
| Max drawdown | -9.4% | -21.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -21.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 28.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BRK.B or MS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BRK.B is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 85 against MS's 57. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 BRK.B or MS the better buy right now?
BRK.B carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 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 BRK.B over MS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BRK.B leads Momentum by 62 points; BRK.B leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BRK.B or MS?
Analyst price targets imply +6.7% upside for BRK.B and +21.2% for MS, so the Street currently favors MS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BRK.B. 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, BRK.B or MS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, BRK.B or MS?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, BRK.B or MS?
BRK.B on the Momentum factor, by 62 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, BRK.B or MS?
BRK.B is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BRK.B on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 BRK.B more profitable than MS?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is BRK.B's lead over MS getting stronger or weaker?
BRK.B lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 28 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when BRK.B moved ahead of MS.
What would change the BRK.B vs MS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MS closes the Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to BRK.B's edge; MS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BRK.B's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 BRK.B and MS?
BRK.B: 6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MS: 1 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 BRK.B is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BRK.B and MS 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.