GWW vs MSFT Stock Comparison
GWW currently leads MSFT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 72 vs 65. The clearest difference is momentum, while MSFT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between GWW and MSFT?
GWW leads the current stock comparison as W.W. Grainger, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
W.W. Grainger, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
GWW leads
GWW leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from MSFT. Wall Street currently favors MSFT on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support GWW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GWW over MSFT, 72 versus 65 as of Oct 31, 2026. GWW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while MSFT holds the stronger quality profile. GWW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MSFT. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GWW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GWW lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GWW now leads by 7.
Compare W.W. Grainger, 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 GWW 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.
- Momentum89 vs 60GWW +29
- Quality78 vs 89MSFT +11
- Risk Resilience79 vs 69GWW +10
- Value47 vs 44Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor GWW. GWW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; MSFT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GWW's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GWW and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GWW (W.W. Grainger, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
GWWGWW 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
GWWGWW on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
GWWGWW on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
MSFTMSFT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GWW, analyst targets favor MSFT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GWW | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.9% | +10.3% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.5% | +56.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 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 | GWW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.25% | 10.22% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $5.940 | $2.090 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $8.830 | $3.400 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #139 | #93 |
MSFT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.22% a year against GWW's 8.25%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GWW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GWW | 72 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 5.9% vs 8.6%; EPS growth 2% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 48.7% vs 33.2%; gross margin 39.4% vs 67.9%; operating margin 14.6% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 47 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 4.7% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 8.7% vs 21.4% |
| Risk Resilience | GWW | Risk Resilience 79 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside -3.9% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GWW 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 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 GWW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GWW lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GWW now leads by 7.
- Today
- GWW +7
- 72 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- GWW +9
- 73 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +7
- 64 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- GWW +6
- 67 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when MSFT moved ahead of GWW.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only GWW
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MSFT
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
GWW 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.93%, AIQ -1 points).
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.
- 1MSFT closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GWW's edge.
- 2MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3GWW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 | GWW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.9% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 39.4% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 14.6% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 48.7% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.29 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GWW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.6% | 3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | 25.1% |
| Year to date | 32.9% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.4% | 1.4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | GWW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.7 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.7% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.7% | 21.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.7% | 19.5% |
Risk
GWW is the more resilient| Metric | GWW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.37 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.4% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GWW or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GWW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 72 against MSFT's 65. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. MSFT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 GWW or MSFT the better buy right now?
GWW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GWW over MSFT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GWW leads Momentum by 29 points; MSFT leads Quality by 11 points; GWW leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GWW or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply -3.9% upside for GWW and +10.3% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors MSFT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GWW. 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, GWW 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, GWW 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, GWW or MSFT?
GWW 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, GWW or MSFT?
GWW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GWW 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 GWW more profitable than MSFT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 39.4% vs 67.9%; operating margin 14.6% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 48.7% vs 33.2%. GWW 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 GWW's lead over MSFT getting stronger or weaker?
GWW lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GWW now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when MSFT moved ahead of GWW.
What would change the GWW vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSFT closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GWW's edge; MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; GWW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 GWW and MSFT?
GWW: 4 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 GWW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GWW 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.