CDE vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads CDE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between CDE and MSFT?
MSFT leads the current stock comparison as Microsoft Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coeur Mining, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors CDE on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over CDE, 67 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. MSFT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CDE. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Coeur Mining, 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 CDE 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.
- Momentum24 vs 70MSFT +46
- Quality64 vs 89MSFT +25
- Risk Resilience53 vs 67MSFT +14
- Value45 vs 44Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MSFT's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CDE and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CDE (Coeur Mining, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.3% against 21.7%.
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
MSFTMSFT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MSFTMSFT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
CDECDE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MSFT, analyst targets favor CDE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CDE | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +56% | +6% | CDE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.3% | +57.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 24 | 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 MSFT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MSFT | 47 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 26.8% vs 8.6%; EPS growth -69.2% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs 33.2%; gross margin 50.4% vs 67.9%; operating margin 35% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day -20.3% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day -21% vs 22% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 53 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | CDE | Target upside 56% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CDE and MSFT 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MSFT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +20
- 47 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +24
- 46 vs 70
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +21
- 46 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +9
- 61 vs 70
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when MSFT moved ahead of CDE.
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 / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CDE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.91%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.59%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MSFT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.27%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
MSFT 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%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.2%, 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.
- 1CDE closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2CDE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 | CDE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 26.8% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -69.2% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 50.4% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 35% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 0.29 |
Performance
MSFT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CDE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.9% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26.2% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | 36.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18% | 25.4% |
| Year to date | -15.1% | 10% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -32.6% | 4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | CDE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26 | 62.3 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 34.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -20.3% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21% | 22% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.3% | 21.7% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | CDE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.97 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.21 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -47.9% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -44.3% | -2.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 73.2% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CDE or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against CDE's 47. The edge comes from momentum 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 CDE or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 MSFT over CDE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Momentum by 46 points; MSFT leads Quality by 25 points; MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CDE or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply +56% upside for CDE and +6% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors CDE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MSFT. 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, CDE or MSFT?
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, CDE 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, CDE or MSFT?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 46 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, CDE or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 CDE more profitable than MSFT?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.4% vs 67.9%; operating margin 35% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 12.5% vs 33.2%.
Is MSFT's lead over CDE getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 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 2026-08-25, when MSFT moved ahead of CDE.
What would change the CDE vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CDE closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; CDE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 CDE and MSFT?
CDE: 1 bullish / 5 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 CDE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CDE 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.