META vs CRM Stock Comparison
CRM currently leads META in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum, while META has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between META and CRM?
CRM leads the current stock comparison as Salesforce, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Meta Platforms, Inc. vs Salesforce, Inc.
CRM leads
CRM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from META. Wall Street currently favors META on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Salesforce, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRM over META, 64 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. CRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while META holds the stronger quality profile. CRM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors META. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CRM lead: Reversed — META led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 12.
Compare Meta Platforms, Inc. and Salesforce, Inc. 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 META and CRM 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.
- Momentum37 vs 75CRM +38
- Value32 vs 64CRM +32
- Quality83 vs 64META +19
- Risk Resilience58 vs 49META +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRM. CRM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; META keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.54%)
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CRM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — META and CRM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRM (Salesforce, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
META (Meta Platforms, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 40.4% against 31.6%.
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
CRMCRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CRMCRM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRMCRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
CRMCRM on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
METAMETA on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
METAMETA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CRM, analyst targets favor META. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | META | CRM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.5% | +8.6% | META has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.7% | +47.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 21 | 11 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRM | 52 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | METAon balance | revenue growth 8% vs 1.9%; EPS growth -41.1% vs 77%; TTM ROE 29.7% vs 20.2%; gross margin 81.7% vs 77.3%; operating margin 38.1% vs 21.4% — META takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRM | Value 32 vs 64 |
| Technicals | CRM | Price vs 50-day 5.8% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day 9.8% vs 21.9% |
| Risk Resilience | META | Risk Resilience 58 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | META | Target upside 14.5% vs 8.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of META and CRM 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 CRM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRM lead: Reversed — META led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 12.
- Today
- CRM +12
- 52 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- CRM +10
- 54 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- META +11
- 65 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CRM +6
- 53 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when CRM moved ahead of META.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only META
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CRM
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
META is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.47%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.27%, 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.
- 1META closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge.
- 2META generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CRM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
META leads on balance| Metric | META | CRM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8% | 1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -41.1% | 77% |
| Gross margin | 81.7% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 21.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 29.7% | 20.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 1.09 |
Performance
CRM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | META | CRM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | 3.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.7% | 48.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.8% | 29.6% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | -8.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.5% | -1.5% |
Technicals
CRM has the stronger structure| Metric | META | CRM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.8 | 62.1 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.8% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.8% | 21.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 31.6% |
Risk
META is the more resilient| Metric | META | CRM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.06 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -30.1% | -43.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.7% | -8.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.1% | 47.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, META or CRM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against META's 52. The edge comes from momentum and value. META 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 META or CRM the better buy right now?
CRM 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRM over META?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRM leads Momentum by 38 points; CRM leads Value by 32 points; META leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, META or CRM?
Analyst price targets imply +14.5% upside for META and +8.6% for CRM, so the Street currently favors META. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CRM. 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, META or CRM?
CRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, META or CRM?
CRM 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, META or CRM?
CRM on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, META or CRM?
META is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. META on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 META more profitable than CRM?
META leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 81.7% vs 77.3%; operating margin 38.1% vs 21.4%; ttm roe 29.7% vs 20.2%.
Is CRM's lead over META getting stronger or weaker?
CRM lead: Reversed — META led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 12. 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 2026-10-08, when CRM moved ahead of META.
What would change the META vs CRM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: META closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge; META generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; CRM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 META and CRM?
META: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 META is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare META and CRM 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.