MAXN vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads MAXN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 61. The clearest difference is quality, while MAXN has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MAXN 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
Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MAXN on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over MAXN, 65 versus 61 as of Oct 31, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while MAXN holds the stronger value profile. MSFT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MAXN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. 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 MAXN 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.
- Quality50 vs 89MSFT +39
- Value75 vs 44MAXN +31
- Risk Resilience54 vs 69MSFT +15
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; MAXN keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MSFT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAXN and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
MAXN (Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 143.7% against 19.5%.
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
MSFTMSFT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MSFTMSFT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MAXNMAXN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
MAXNMAXN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MSFT, analyst targets favor MAXN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MAXN | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +376.2% | +10.3% | MAXN 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 |
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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 61 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | MSFT | TTM ROE 20% vs 33.2%; gross margin -39.2% vs 67.9%; operating margin -176.3% vs 46.8% |
| Valuation | MAXN | Value 75 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day -88.6% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day -37.9% vs 21.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 54 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | MAXN | Target upside 376.2% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAXN 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 4 points. (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 29 – Oct 28MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +4
- 61 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +3
- 61 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +10
- 61 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +13
- 48 vs 61
The lead changed hands 14 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when MSFT moved ahead of MAXN.
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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
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 -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.
- 1MAXN closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2MAXN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-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
MSFT leads on balance| Metric | MAXN | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | -39.2% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | -176.3% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | -0.98 | 0.29 |
Performance
MSFT leads 3 of 3 windows| Metric | MAXN | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -17.7% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -30.7% | 3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | 17.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | 25.1% |
| Year to date | -52.2% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 1.4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MAXN | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 15.3 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 22.2 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -88.6% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -37.9% | 21.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 143.7% | 19.5% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MAXN | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.55 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.17 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.68 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -82.4% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -80.5% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 144.7% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -12.4% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAXN or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against MAXN's 61. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. MAXN 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 MAXN or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSFT over MAXN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 39 points; MAXN leads Value by 31 points; MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAXN or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply +376.2% upside for MAXN and +10.3% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors MAXN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MSFT. 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, MAXN or MSFT?
MAXN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MAXN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, MAXN 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, MAXN or MSFT?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, MAXN or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 MAXN more profitable than MSFT?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -39.2% vs 67.9%; operating margin -176.3% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 20% vs 33.2%.
Is MSFT's lead over MAXN getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 14 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-21, when MSFT moved ahead of MAXN.
What would change the MAXN vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAXN closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; MAXN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate MSFT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MAXN and MSFT?
MAXN: No active signals. 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. On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MAXN 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.