HAYW vs MSFT Stock Comparison
HAYW currently leads MSFT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 65. The clearest difference is value, while MSFT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between HAYW and MSFT?
HAYW leads the current stock comparison as Hayward Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hayward Holdings, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
HAYW leads
HAYW leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from MSFT.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HAYW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hayward Holdings, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAYW over MSFT, 66 versus 65 as of Oct 31, 2026. HAYW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MSFT holds the stronger quality profile. HAYW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAYW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. HAYW lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HAYW now leads by 1.
Compare Hayward Holdings, 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 HAYW 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.
- Quality60 vs 89MSFT +29
- Value63 vs 44HAYW +19
- Momentum79 vs 60HAYW +19
- Risk Resilience65 vs 69MSFT +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HAYW. HAYW’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; 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: Risk Resilience -9, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
HAYW's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HAYW and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAYW (Hayward Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
HAYWHAYW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HAYWHAYW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HAYWHAYW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
HAYWHAYW on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
HAYWHAYW 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 | HAYW | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +10.3% | HAYW has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +56.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 23 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAYW. 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 | 66 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 24.7% vs 8.6%; EPS growth 90.9% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 10.2% vs 33.2%; gross margin 44.6% vs 67.9%; operating margin 21.2% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HAYW | Value 63 vs 44 |
| Technicals | HAYW | Price vs 50-day 24.5% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs 21.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 65 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | HAYW | Target upside 11.7% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HAYW 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 HAYW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28HAYW lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HAYW now leads by 1.
- Today
- HAYW +1
- 66 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +4
- 60 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +16
- 55 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +7
- 54 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when HAYW 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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HAYW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.49%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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
HAYW 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 +3.53%, AIQ 0 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 Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAYW's edge.
- 2MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3HAYW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 | HAYW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.7% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 90.9% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 44.6% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 21.2% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.2% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.29 |
Performance
MSFT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HAYW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 14.3% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 20.8% | 3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.7% | 25.1% |
| Year to date | -4.3% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5% | 1.4% |
Technicals
HAYW has the stronger structure| Metric | HAYW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.6 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 34 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 24.5% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | 21.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.7% | 19.5% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | HAYW | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.03 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.06 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -34.4% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -14.6% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.9% | 32.9% |
| 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, HAYW or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAYW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against MSFT's 65. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 HAYW or MSFT the better buy right now?
HAYW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAYW over MSFT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 29 points; HAYW leads Value by 19 points; HAYW leads Momentum by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HAYW or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for HAYW and +10.3% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors HAYW. 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, HAYW or MSFT?
HAYW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HAYW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, HAYW or MSFT?
HAYW 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, HAYW or MSFT?
HAYW on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, HAYW or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 HAYW more profitable than MSFT?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.6% vs 67.9%; operating margin 21.2% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 10.2% vs 33.2%.
Is HAYW's lead over MSFT getting stronger or weaker?
HAYW lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HAYW now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-27, when HAYW moved ahead of MSFT.
What would change the HAYW vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSFT closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAYW's edge; MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; HAYW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 HAYW and MSFT?
HAYW: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 HAYW is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HAYW 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.