MNDY vs MSCI Stock Comparison
Compare MNDY and MSCI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MNDY and MSCI?
MNDY leads the current stock comparison as monday.com Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
monday.com Ltd. vs MSCI Inc.
MNDY leads
MNDY leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MSCI on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MNDY, and its lead is narrowing.
monday.com Ltd.
MSCI Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNDY over MSCI, 54 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. MNDY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while MSCI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MNDY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MSCI. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNDY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MNDY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare monday.com Ltd. and MSCI Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MNDY and MSCI 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.
- Value65 vs 24MNDY +41
- Quality67 vs 60MNDY +7
- Risk Resilience46 vs 53MSCI +7
- Momentum30 vs 28Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MNDY. MNDY’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; MSCI keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
MNDY's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MNDY and MSCI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNDY (monday.com Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
MSCI (MSCI Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
MNDYMNDY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MSCIMSCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MNDYMNDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MSCIMSCI on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
MSCIMSCI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MNDY, analyst targets favor MSCI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MNDY | MSCI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.5% | +27.1% | MSCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +75.2% | +20.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 7 | 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 MNDY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MNDY | 54 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | MNDYon balance | revenue growth 3.8% vs 1.9%; EPS growth -86.3% vs -15.2%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs -54.1%; gross margin 88.7% vs 83%; operating margin 2.9% vs 55.7% — MNDY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MNDY | Value 65 vs 24 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day -9.4% vs -4.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MSCI | Risk Resilience 46 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | MSCI | Target upside 22.5% vs 27.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MNDY and MSCI 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 MNDY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MNDY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MNDY +14
- 54 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- MNDY +13
- 62 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- MNDY +19
- 61 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- MNDY +14
- 64 vs 50
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.30%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.51%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.90%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MSCI 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.96%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.28%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1MSCI closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNDY's edge.
- 2MSCI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3MNDY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate MNDY'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
MNDY leads on balance| Metric | MNDY | MSCI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.8% | 1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -86.3% | -15.2% |
| Gross margin | 88.7% | 83% |
| Operating margin | 2.9% | 55.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | -54.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.38 | -2.43 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MNDY | MSCI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.8% | -2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | -10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12% | 0.1% |
| Year to date | -42.3% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -55.3% | -4.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MNDY | MSCI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.1 | 37.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15.6 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.4% | -4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 78.4% | 26% |
Risk
MSCI is the more resilient| Metric | MNDY | MSCI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.01 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.5 | -0.13 |
| Max drawdown | -73.2% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -61.1% | -14.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 64.5% | 30.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MNDY or MSCI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNDY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against MSCI's 40. The edge comes from value and quality. MSCI is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 MNDY or MSCI the better buy right now?
MNDY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 MNDY over MSCI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MNDY leads Value by 41 points; MNDY leads Quality by 7 points; MSCI leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MNDY or MSCI?
Analyst price targets imply +22.5% upside for MNDY and +27.1% for MSCI, so the Street currently favors MSCI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MNDY. 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, MNDY or MSCI?
MNDY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MNDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 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, MNDY or MSCI?
MSCI 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, MNDY or MSCI?
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, MNDY or MSCI?
MSCI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSCI on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 MNDY more profitable than MSCI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 88.7% vs 83%; operating margin 2.9% vs 55.7%; ttm roe 12.5% vs -54.1%. MNDY leads on two measures and MSCI on one measure, 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 MNDY's lead over MSCI getting stronger or weaker?
MNDY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MNDY vs MSCI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSCI closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNDY's edge; MSCI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; MNDY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate MNDY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MNDY and MSCI?
MNDY: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. MSCI: 2 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 MNDY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MSCI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MNDY and MSCI 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.