MEDP vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads MEDP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 57. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between MEDP and MSFT?
MSFT leads the current stock comparison as Microsoft Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Medpace Holdings, Inc. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Medpace Holdings, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over MEDP, 67 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. MSFT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 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 Medpace 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 MEDP 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.
- Value30 vs 44MSFT +14
- Quality79 vs 89MSFT +10
- Momentum62 vs 70MSFT +8
- Risk Resilience59 vs 67MSFT +8
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
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 — MEDP 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 14 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 | MEDP | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13% | +6% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.1% | +57.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 24 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 | 57 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | TTM ROE 110.1% vs 33.2%; gross margin 28.8% vs 67.9%; operating margin 21% vs 46.8% — MSFT takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MSFT | Value 30 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 9.1% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day 18.2% vs 22% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 59 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside -13% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MEDP and MSFT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +10
- 57 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +12
- 58 vs 70
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +5
- 62 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +14
- 56 vs 70
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 23 when MSFT moved ahead of MEDP.
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 / 0 bearish
Only MEDP
- 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 +6.43%, 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.
- 1MEDP closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2MEDP's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 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 | MEDP | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.1% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.9% | 12.4% |
| Gross margin | 28.8% | 67.9% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 110.1% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 0.29 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MEDP | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.9% | 36.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.9% | 25.4% |
| Year to date | 10.8% | 10% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.4% | 4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MEDP | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 62.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 34.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.1% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.2% | 22% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.9% | 21.7% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MEDP | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -36.6% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.2% | -2.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.2% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MEDP or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against MEDP's 57. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 MEDP or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSFT over MEDP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Value by 14 points; MSFT leads Quality by 10 points; MSFT leads Momentum by 8 points. MSFT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MEDP 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, MEDP or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply -13% upside for MEDP 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, MEDP or MSFT?
MSFT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MSFT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, MEDP 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, MEDP or MSFT?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, MEDP or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 MEDP more profitable than MSFT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.8% vs 67.9%; operating margin 21% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 110.1% vs 33.2%. MEDP 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 MEDP getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-23, when MSFT moved ahead of MEDP.
What would change the MEDP vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MEDP closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; MEDP's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; 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 MEDP and MSFT?
MEDP: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 MEDP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MEDP 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.