MSFT vs CRWD Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads CRWD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between MSFT and CRWD?
MSFT leads the current stock comparison as Microsoft Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Microsoft Corporation vs CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 31 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Microsoft Corporation
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over CRWD, 67 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. MSFT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 31 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 CrowdStrike Holdings, 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 MSFT and CRWD 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.
- Momentum70 vs 15MSFT +55
- Quality89 vs 59MSFT +30
- Value44 vs 24MSFT +20
- Risk Resilience67 vs 47MSFT +20
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
MSFT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MSFT and CRWD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 49.9% against 21.7%.
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 20 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 55 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | MSFT | CRWD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6% | -9.9% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.5% | +149.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 33 | 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 | 67 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 6.2%; EPS growth 12.4% vs -81.1%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 1.3%; gross margin 67.9% vs 75.2%; operating margin 46.8% vs -2.2% — MSFT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MSFT | Value 44 vs 24 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 22% vs 40.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 67 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside 6% vs -9.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSFT and CRWD 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 31 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 13 to 31 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +31
- 67 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +27
- 70 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +13
- 67 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +17
- 70 vs 53
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
Only MSFT
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CRWD
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.25%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.2%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +5.26%, 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.
- 1CRWD closes the Momentum gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 | MSFT | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | -81.1% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 75.2% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | -2.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 1.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.16 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MSFT | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | -13% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 36.3% | 20.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.4% | 102.3% |
| Year to date | 10% | 94% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4% | 88.6% |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.3 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 34.6 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22% | 40.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 49.9% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | 2.27 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -37.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -18.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 33% | 55.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSFT or CRWD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against CRWD's 36. The edge comes from momentum 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 MSFT or CRWD the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 CRWD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Momentum by 55 points; MSFT leads Quality by 30 points; MSFT leads Value by 20 points. MSFT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CRWD 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 CRWD?
Analyst price targets imply +6% upside for MSFT and -9.9% for CRWD, 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, MSFT or CRWD?
MSFT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MSFT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 CRWD?
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, MSFT or CRWD?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 55 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, MSFT or CRWD?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 MSFT more profitable than CRWD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.9% vs 75.2%; operating margin 46.8% vs -2.2%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 1.3%. MSFT leads on two measures and CRWD 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 MSFT's lead over CRWD getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 31 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MSFT vs CRWD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWD closes the Momentum gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 MSFT and CRWD?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CRWD: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 CRWD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MSFT and CRWD 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.