GRBK vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads GRBK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum, while GRBK has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GRBK 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
Green Brick Partners, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Green Brick Partners, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over GRBK, 67 versus 50 as of Oct 22, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while GRBK holds the stronger value profile. MSFT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Green Brick Partners, 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 GRBK 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.
- Momentum30 vs 70MSFT +40
- Quality57 vs 89MSFT +32
- Value57 vs 44GRBK +13
- Risk Resilience58 vs 67MSFT +9
4 of 5 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; GRBK 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: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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 — GRBK 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.
GRBK (Green Brick Partners, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 29.1% 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
GRBKGRBK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GRBKGRBK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | GRBK | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +57.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 24 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 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 | 50 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 6.1% vs 8.6%; EPS growth 22.1% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 15.4% vs 33.2%; gross margin 31.2% vs 67.9%; operating margin 19.5% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GRBK | Value 57 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day -10.7% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day -11.1% vs 22% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 58 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GRBK and MSFT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +17
- 50 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +21
- 49 vs 70
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +14
- 53 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +16
- 54 vs 70
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 7 when MSFT moved ahead of GRBK.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only GRBK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.64%)
- 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.11%, 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.
- 1GRBK closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2GRBK'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 | GRBK | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.1% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.1% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 31.2% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 19.5% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.4% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.29 |
Performance
MSFT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GRBK | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.2% | 36.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12.6% | 25.4% |
| Year to date | -1.1% | 10% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.5% | 4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | GRBK | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.3 | 62.3 |
| ADX (14) | 19.2 | 34.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.7% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.1% | 22% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.1% | 21.7% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | GRBK | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.39 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -25.4% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -23.1% | -2.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.9% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GRBK or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 67 against GRBK's 50. The edge comes from momentum and quality. GRBK 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 GRBK or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSFT over GRBK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Momentum by 40 points; MSFT leads Quality by 32 points; GRBK leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GRBK or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for GRBK and +6% for 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, GRBK or MSFT?
GRBK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GRBK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, GRBK or MSFT?
GRBK 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, GRBK or MSFT?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 40 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, GRBK or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 GRBK more profitable than MSFT?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 31.2% vs 67.9%; operating margin 19.5% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 15.4% vs 33.2%.
Is MSFT's lead over GRBK getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 17 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-07, when MSFT moved ahead of GRBK.
What would change the GRBK vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GRBK closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; GRBK'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 GRBK and MSFT?
GRBK: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 GRBK is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GRBK 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.