ICE vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads ICE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between ICE and MSFT?
MSFT leads the current stock comparison as Microsoft Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over ICE, 65 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. MSFT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions. MSFT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Intercontinental Exchange, 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 ICE 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.
- Quality63 vs 89MSFT +26
- Value28 vs 44MSFT +16
- Momentum49 vs 60MSFT +11
- Risk Resilience65 vs 69MSFT +4
6 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
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 — ICE and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
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
MSFTMSFT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 | ICE | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.7% | +10.3% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | +56.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 23 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ICE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.86% | 10.22% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $2.090 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.920 | $3.400 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #107 | #93 |
MSFT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.22% a year against ICE's 9.86%. 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
6 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 | 49 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth -1.5% vs 8.6%; EPS growth -31.7% vs 12.4%; TTM ROE 13.8% vs 33.2%; gross margin 73.4% vs 67.9%; operating margin 44.9% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MSFT | Value 28 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 0.9% vs 21.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 65 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside 8.7% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ICE 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 6 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 · Jul 1 – Oct 30MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +16
- 49 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +6
- 58 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +17
- 54 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +6
- 59 vs 65
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MSFT
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.55%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1ICE closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 | ICE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.5% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.7% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 73.4% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 44.9% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.8% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.69 | 0.29 |
Performance
MSFT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ICE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.1% | 25.1% |
| Year to date | -3.7% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | 1.4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | ICE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.9% | 21.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.3% | 19.5% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | ICE | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.17 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.06 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.08 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -29.8% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 32.9% |
| 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, ICE or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against ICE's 49. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 ICE or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 6 of 6 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 ICE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 26 points; MSFT leads Value by 16 points; MSFT leads Momentum by 11 points. MSFT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ICE simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, ICE or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply +8.7% upside for ICE and +10.3% 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, ICE or MSFT?
MSFT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MSFT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, ICE 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, ICE or MSFT?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, ICE 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 ICE more profitable than MSFT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.4% vs 67.9%; operating margin 44.9% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 13.8% vs 33.2%. ICE 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 ICE getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ICE vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ICE closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; ICE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 ICE and MSFT?
ICE: 2 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 ICE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ICE 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.