FFIV vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads FFIV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 64. The clearest difference is momentum, while FFIV has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FFIV 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
F5, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from FFIV.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
F5, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over FFIV, 67 versus 64 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while FFIV holds the stronger value profile. MSFT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. MSFT lead: Reversed — FFIV led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MSFT now leads by 3.
Compare F5, 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 FFIV 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.
- Momentum56 vs 70MSFT +14
- Value56 vs 44FFIV +12
- Quality79 vs 89MSFT +10
- Risk Resilience66 vs 67Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; FFIV keeps a meaningful value 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: Risk Resilience -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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 was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FFIV 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.
FFIV (F5, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 31.4% against 21.7%.
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
FFIVFFIV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FFIVFFIV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MSFTMSFT 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 | FFIV | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13.7% | +6% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.2% | +57.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 24 | 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 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 | Even | 64 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 6.6% vs 8.6%; EPS growth 40.6% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 19.9% vs 33.2%; gross margin 82.2% vs 67.9%; operating margin 24.5% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FFIV | Value 56 vs 44 |
| Technicals | FFIV | Price vs 50-day 7.7% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day 27.8% vs 22% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside -13.7% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FFIV 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 3 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)
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: Reversed — FFIV led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MSFT now leads by 3.
- Today
- MSFT +3
- 64 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +3
- 67 vs 70
- 30 sessions ago
- FFIV +3
- 70 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +10
- 60 vs 70
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when FFIV 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.
FFIV and MSFT carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.41%, 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.
- 1FFIV closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2FFIV generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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 | FFIV | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.6% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.6% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 82.2% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 24.5% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.9% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 0.29 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FFIV | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.1% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.7% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14% | 36.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 44.7% | 25.4% |
| Year to date | 78.9% | 10% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49.2% | 4% |
Technicals
FFIV has the stronger structure| Metric | FFIV | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 62.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 34.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.7% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27.8% | 22% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.4% | 21.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FFIV | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.24 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.91 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -2.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.6% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FFIV or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against FFIV's 64. The edge comes from momentum and quality. FFIV is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 FFIV or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSFT over FFIV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Momentum by 14 points; FFIV leads Value by 12 points; MSFT leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FFIV or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply -13.7% upside for FFIV and +6% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors MSFT. 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, FFIV or MSFT?
FFIV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FFIV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, FFIV or MSFT?
FFIV 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, FFIV or MSFT?
MSFT 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, FFIV or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FFIV more profitable than MSFT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 82.2% vs 67.9%; operating margin 24.5% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 19.9% vs 33.2%. FFIV leads on one measure and MSFT on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is MSFT's lead over FFIV getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Reversed — FFIV led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MSFT now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when FFIV moved ahead of MSFT.
What would change the FFIV vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FFIV closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; FFIV generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 FFIV and MSFT?
FFIV: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 FFIV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FFIV 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.