HAS vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads HAS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 62. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while HAS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between HAS and MSFT?
MSFT leads the current stock comparison as Microsoft Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hasbro, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hasbro, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over HAS, 67 versus 62 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while HAS holds the stronger momentum profile. MSFT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hasbro, 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 HAS 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.
- Risk Resilience42 vs 67MSFT +25
- Quality70 vs 89MSFT +19
- Momentum84 vs 70HAS +14
- Value44 vs 44Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; HAS keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -10, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
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 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HAS and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
HAS (Hasbro, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 43.4% 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
MSFTMSFT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
HASHAS on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
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 | HAS | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -7.7% | +6% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.1% | +57.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | HAS | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 0.58% | 10.22% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.720 | $2.090 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.800 | $3.400 |
| Years increased | 2 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #347 | #93 |
MSFT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.22% a year against HAS's 0.58%. 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
3 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 | 62 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | HASon balance | revenue growth 13.9% vs 8.6%; EPS growth -19.9% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 138.4% vs 33.2%; gross margin 70.3% vs 67.9%; operating margin 23.9% vs 46.8% — HAS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 44 vs 44 |
| Technicals | HAS | Price vs 50-day 22.9% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day 13.4% vs 22% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 42 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside -7.7% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HAS 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 21 – Oct 20MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +5
- 62 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +8
- 62 vs 70
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +15
- 52 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +14
- 56 vs 70
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when MSFT moved ahead of HAS.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only HAS
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- 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.
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.09%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1HAS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2HAS's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 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 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-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
HAS leads on balance| Metric | HAS | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.9% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -19.9% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 70.3% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 23.9% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 138.4% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 5.06 | 0.29 |
Performance
HAS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HAS | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10.6% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 20.4% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23% | 36.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.3% | 25.4% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | 10% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 40.8% | 4% |
Technicals
HAS has the stronger structure| Metric | HAS | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.1 | 62.3 |
| ADX (14) | 32.2 | 34.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 22.9% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.4% | 22% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.4% | 21.7% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | HAS | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.24 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -28.4% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -2.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HAS or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against HAS's 62. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. HAS is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 HAS or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSFT over HAS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; MSFT leads Quality by 19 points; HAS leads Momentum by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HAS or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply -7.7% upside for HAS 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, HAS 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, HAS 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, HAS or MSFT?
HAS 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, HAS or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 HAS more profitable than MSFT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.3% vs 67.9%; operating margin 23.9% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 138.4% vs 33.2%. HAS leads on two measures and MSFT on one measure, 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 HAS getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when MSFT moved ahead of HAS.
What would change the HAS vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HAS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; HAS's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; 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 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate MSFT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HAS and MSFT?
HAS: 6 bullish / 2 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 HAS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HAS 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.