MNDY vs MSFT Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads MNDY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while MNDY has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MNDY 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
monday.com Ltd. vs Microsoft Corporation
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MNDY on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
monday.com Ltd.
Microsoft Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over MNDY, 63 versus 56 as of Nov 7, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while MNDY 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 MNDY. 4 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 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare monday.com 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 MNDY 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.
- Quality67 vs 89MSFT +22
- Value65 vs 43MNDY +22
- Momentum39 vs 59MSFT +20
- Risk Resilience46 vs 59MSFT +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; MNDY keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -24
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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 widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MNDY and MSFT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
MNDY (monday.com Ltd.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 66.4% against 35.4%.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
MNDYMNDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
MNDYMNDY 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 MNDY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MNDY | MSFT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.2% | +12% | MNDY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73.8% | +58.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 27 | 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 | 56 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | TTM ROE 12.5% vs 33.2%; gross margin 88.7% vs 67.7%; operating margin 2.9% vs 47.1% — MSFT takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MNDY | Value 65 vs 43 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 6.5% vs 20.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 46 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | MNDY | Target upside 23.2% vs 12% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MNDY 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 7 points.
- 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 · Jul 8 – Nov 6MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +7
- 56 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- MNDY +4
- 64 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +4
- 66 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +4
- 62 vs 66
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Nov 4 when MSFT moved ahead of MNDY.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MNDY
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.41%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MSFT
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -6.3%, AIQ -6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.99%, 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.
- 1MNDY closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2MNDY'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 | MNDY | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.8% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -86.3% | — |
| Gross margin | 88.7% | 67.7% |
| Operating margin | 2.9% | 47.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | 33.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.38 | 0.28 |
Performance
MSFT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MNDY | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8% | 1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.8% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22% | 27.8% |
| Year to date | -40.4% | 9.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -54.3% | 4.6% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MNDY | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.4 | 48.8 |
| ADX (14) | 14.5 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.5% | 20.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.4% | 35.4% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MNDY | MSFT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.52 | 1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.82 | 0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.25 | 0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -69% | -31% |
| Current drawdown | -53.6% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.4% | 33.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.3% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MNDY or MSFT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 63 against MNDY's 56. The edge comes from quality and momentum. MNDY 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 MNDY or MSFT the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 MNDY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 22 points; MNDY leads Value by 22 points; MSFT leads Momentum by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MNDY or MSFT?
Analyst price targets imply +23.2% upside for MNDY and +12% for MSFT, so the Street currently favors MNDY. 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, MNDY or MSFT?
MNDY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MNDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 MSFT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 MSFT?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, MNDY or MSFT?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 MSFT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 88.7% vs 67.7%; operating margin 2.9% vs 47.1%; ttm roe 12.5% vs 33.2%. MNDY 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 MNDY getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-11-04, when MSFT moved ahead of MNDY.
What would change the MNDY vs MSFT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MNDY closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; MNDY'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 MNDY and MSFT?
MNDY: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 MNDY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSFT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MNDY 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.