MSFT vs NSA Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads NSA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while NSA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MSFT and NSA?
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
Microsoft Corporation vs National Storage Affiliates Trust
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 30 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Microsoft Corporation
National Storage Affiliates Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over NSA, 65 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while NSA holds the stronger value profile. 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 Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Microsoft Corporation and National Storage Affiliates Trust 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 NSA 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.
- Quality89 vs 23MSFT +66
- Risk Resilience69 vs 43MSFT +26
- Value44 vs 59NSA +15
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; NSA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
MSFT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MSFT and NSA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
NSA (National Storage Affiliates Trust): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
NSANSA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 | NSA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.3% | +2.5% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.5% | +9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MSFT | NSA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.22% | 11.05% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.090 | $1.350 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.400 | $2.280 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #93 | #9 |
NSA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.05% a year against MSFT's 10.22%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and REITs — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
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 41 |
| Fundamentals | MSFT | EPS growth 12.4% vs -33.3%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 8.2%; gross margin 67.9% vs 33.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 37.6% |
| Valuation | NSA | Value 44 vs 59 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 2.1% vs -1.3%; vs 200-day 21.4% vs 20.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 69 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside 10.3% vs 2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSFT and NSA 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 wide at 24 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 narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 29 – Oct 28MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +24
- 65 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +23
- 64 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +30
- 71 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +22
- 61 vs 39
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.89%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.55%, 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.
- 1NSA closes the Quality gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2NSA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 24-point move would eliminate MSFT'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
MSFT leads on balance| Metric | MSFT | NSA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | -0.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | -33.3% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 33.9% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 37.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 8.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 3.77 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MSFT | NSA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.5% | -3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.7% | -1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.1% | 28.4% |
| Year to date | 9.8% | 53.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.4% | 38.3% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | NSA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 44.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.7 | 12.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.1% | -1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21.4% | 20.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 24.5% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | NSA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.02 | 1.19 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.03 | 3.08 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -5.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.9% | 42.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSFT or NSA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against NSA's 41. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. NSA 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 MSFT or NSA the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 NSA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 66 points; MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; NSA leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MSFT or NSA?
Analyst price targets imply +10.3% upside for MSFT and +2.5% for NSA, 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 NSA?
NSA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NSA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 NSA?
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 NSA?
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, MSFT or NSA?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 NSA?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.9% vs 33.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 37.6%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 8.2%.
Is MSFT's lead over NSA getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 30 to 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MSFT vs NSA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NSA closes the Quality gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; NSA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; MSFT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 24-point move would eliminate MSFT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MSFT and NSA?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. NSA: No active signals. 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).
Compare MSFT and NSA 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.