CRWD vs MSTR Stock Comparison
MSTR currently leads CRWD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 44 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum, while CRWD has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CRWD and MSTR?
MSTR leads the current stock comparison as Strategy Inc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. vs Strategy Inc
MSTR leads
MSTR leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from CRWD.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MSTR, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Strategy Inc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSTR over CRWD, 44 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSTR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while CRWD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MSTR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSTR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MSTR lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MSTR now leads by 8.
Compare CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. and Strategy Inc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare CRWD 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.
- Momentum15 vs 44MSTR +29
- Value24 vs 34MSTR +10
- Risk Resilience47 vs 37CRWD +10
- Quality59 vs 58Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MSTR. MSTR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; CRWD keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MSTR's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRWD and MSTR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSTR (Strategy Inc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, technicals.
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
MSTRMSTR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MSTRMSTR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MSTRMSTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
MSTRMSTR on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
CRWDCRWD on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
MSTRMSTR 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 | CRWD | MSTR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -9.9% | +42.1% | MSTR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +149.2% | +142.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 33 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSTR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MSTR | 36 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | CRWDon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs -1.6%; EPS growth -81.1% vs 37.1%; TTM ROE 1.3% vs -60.8%; gross margin 75.2% vs 67.6%; operating margin -2.2% vs -16.8% — CRWD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MSTR | Value 24 vs 34 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 2.5% vs 12.4%; vs 200-day 40.6% vs 5.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CRWD | Risk Resilience 47 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | MSTR | Target upside -9.9% vs 42.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRWD and MSTR 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 3 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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 MSTR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MSTR lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MSTR now leads by 8.
- Today
- MSTR +8
- 36 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- MSTR +2
- 43 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- CRWD +2
- 54 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- CRWD +8
- 53 vs 45
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when MSTR moved ahead of CRWD.
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CRWD
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MSTR
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MSTR 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 +5.26%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +7.54%, 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.
- 1CRWD closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSTR's edge.
- 2CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MSTR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
CRWD leads on balance| Metric | CRWD | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | -1.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -81.1% | 37.1% |
| Gross margin | 75.2% | 67.6% |
| Operating margin | -2.2% | -16.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.3% | -60.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.15 |
Performance
CRWD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CRWD | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -13% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.1% | -14.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.7% | 42.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 102.3% | -13% |
| Year to date | 94% | -6.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 88.6% | -49.7% |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | CRWD | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.5 | 42.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.1 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.5% | 12.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 40.6% | 5.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 49.9% | 60.1% |
Risk
CRWD is the more resilient| Metric | CRWD | MSTR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.6 | 3.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.34 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.27 | -1.01 |
| Max drawdown | -37.2% | -72.7% |
| Current drawdown | -18.5% | -52.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.7% | 82% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -7.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRWD or MSTR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSTR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 44 against CRWD's 36. The edge comes from momentum and value. CRWD 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 CRWD or MSTR the better buy right now?
MSTR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSTR over CRWD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSTR leads Momentum by 29 points; MSTR leads Value by 10 points; CRWD leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRWD or MSTR?
Analyst price targets imply -9.9% upside for CRWD and +42.1% for MSTR, so the Street currently favors MSTR. 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, CRWD or MSTR?
MSTR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MSTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, CRWD 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, CRWD or MSTR?
MSTR on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, CRWD or MSTR?
CRWD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRWD on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 CRWD more profitable than MSTR?
CRWD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 75.2% vs 67.6%; operating margin -2.2% vs -16.8%; ttm roe 1.3% vs -60.8%.
Is MSTR's lead over CRWD getting stronger or weaker?
MSTR lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MSTR now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when MSTR moved ahead of CRWD.
What would change the CRWD vs MSTR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWD closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSTR's edge; CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MSTR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 CRWD and MSTR?
CRWD: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MSTR: 2 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 CRWD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSTR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRWD 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.