MSFT vs AMZN Stock Comparison
Microsoft Corporation vs Amazon.com, Inc.
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors AMZN on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Microsoft Corporation
Amazon.com, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over AMZN, 65 versus 51 as of Sep 2, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. MSFT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AMZN. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 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 Microsoft Corporation and Amazon.com, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%45 vs 27MSFT +18
- Risk Resilience15%67 vs 53MSFT +14
- Quality30%89 vs 77MSFT +12
- Momentum25%60 vs 48MSFT +12
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MSFT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MSFT and AMZN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
AMZN (Amazon.com, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 26.9% against 21.7%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
AMZNAMZN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MSFTMSFT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
AMZNAMZN 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 AMZN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MSFT | AMZN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.4% | +27.1% | AMZN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +53.2% | +35.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 30 | 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
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 | 65 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 10.5%; EPS growth 12.4% vs 106.4%; ROE 33.2% vs 30.5%; gross margin 67.9% vs 50.8%; operating margin 46.8% vs 12.1% — MSFT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MSFT | Value 45 vs 27 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 14.1% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day 17.6% vs 8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 67 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AMZN | Target upside 10.4% vs 27.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSFT and AMZN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 · Apr 20 – Sep 1MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +14
- 65 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +16
- 64 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +12
- 72 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +6
- 51 vs 45
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.47%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.54%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.36%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.12%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1AMZN closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2AMZN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | MSFT | AMZN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 10.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | 106.4% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 50.8% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 12.1% |
| Return on equity | 33.2% | 30.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.4 |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | AMZN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.2 | 38.1 |
| ADX (14) | 37.9 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.1% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.6% | 8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 26.9% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | AMZN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 1.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.02 | 0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.04 | 0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -21.7% |
| Current drawdown | -6.4% | -8.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.5% | 34.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSFT or AMZN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 65 against AMZN's 51. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 MSFT or AMZN the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSFT over AMZN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MSFT leads Value by 18 points; MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; MSFT leads Quality by 12 points. MSFT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by AMZN 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, MSFT or AMZN?
Analyst price targets imply +10.4% upside for MSFT and +27.1% for AMZN, so the Street currently favors AMZN. 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, MSFT or AMZN?
MSFT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MSFT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, MSFT or AMZN?
AMZN 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, MSFT or AMZN?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 12 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, MSFT or AMZN?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 14 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MSFT more profitable than AMZN?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.9% vs 50.8%; operating margin 46.8% vs 12.1%; roe 33.2% vs 30.5%.
Is MSFT's lead over AMZN getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MSFT vs AMZN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMZN closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; AMZN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MSFT and AMZN?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. AMZN: 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 MSFT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On AMZN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MSFT and AMZN with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.