CTRA vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads CTRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CTRA and MSFT?
MSFT leads the current stock comparison as Microsoft Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coterra Energy Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CTRA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coterra Energy Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over CTRA, 65 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. MSFT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CTRA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Coterra Energy 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 CTRA 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.
- Quality55 vs 89MSFT +34
- Risk Resilience52 vs 69MSFT +17
- Value42 vs 44Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MSFT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTRA and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CTRA (Coterra Energy Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 44.4% against 19.5%.
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
MSFTMSFT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTRACTRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
CTRACTRA 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 CTRA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CTRA | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29% | +10.3% | CTRA has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +56.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 23 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CTRA | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 17.08% | 10.22% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.400 | $2.090 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.880 | $3.400 |
| Years increased | — | 5 |
| No cut in window | — | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #93 |
CTRA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 17.08% a year against MSFT's 10.22%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
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 | 49 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | EPS growth 27.1% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 11.3% vs 33.2%; gross margin 39% vs 67.9%; operating margin 31.1% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 18.8% vs 21.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 52 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | CTRA | Target upside 29% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTRA 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 MSFT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +16
- 49 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +15
- 49 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +22
- 49 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +12
- 49 vs 61
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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
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.
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.
- 1CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate MSFT's advantage entirely.
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 | CTRA | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.6% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 27.1% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 39% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 31.1% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.3% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.29 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CTRA | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.7% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.7% | 3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.8% | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.5% | 25.1% |
| Year to date | 23.7% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.8% | 1.4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | CTRA | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 19.2 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.8% | 21.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.4% | 19.5% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | CTRA | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.72 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.71 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.35 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.3% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 32% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTRA or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against CTRA's 49. The edge comes from quality 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 CTRA or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 CTRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 34 points; MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTRA or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply +29% upside for CTRA and +10.3% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors CTRA. 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, CTRA 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, CTRA or MSFT?
CTRA 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, CTRA or MSFT?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CTRA or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 CTRA more profitable than MSFT?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39% vs 67.9%; operating margin 31.1% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 11.3% vs 33.2%.
Is MSFT's lead over CTRA getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CTRA vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate MSFT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CTRA and MSFT?
CTRA: No active signals. 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. On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CTRA 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.