MSFT vs NTAP Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads NTAP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 58. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while NTAP has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MSFT and NTAP?
MSFT leads the current stock comparison as Microsoft Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Microsoft Corporation vs NetApp, Inc.
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Microsoft Corporation
NetApp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over NTAP, 67 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while NTAP holds the stronger value profile. MSFT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSFT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Microsoft Corporation and NetApp, 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 NTAP 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.
- Risk Resilience67 vs 42MSFT +25
- Quality89 vs 70MSFT +19
- Momentum70 vs 51MSFT +19
- Value44 vs 61NTAP +17
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; NTAP keeps a meaningful value edge.
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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
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 NTAP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
NTAP (NetApp, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 46.5% 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
NTAPNTAP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NTAPNTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 | NTAP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6% | -5% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.5% | +72.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MSFT | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.22% | 1.61% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.090 | $1.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.400 | $2.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #93 | #338 |
MSFT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.22% a year against NTAP's 1.61%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
3 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 58 |
| Fundamentals | NTAPon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 13.7%; EPS growth 12.4% vs 21.3%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 114.2%; gross margin 67.9% vs 70.7%; operating margin 46.8% vs 24.1% — NTAP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NTAP | Value 44 vs 61 |
| Technicals | NTAP | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 7.2%; vs 200-day 22% vs 44.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 67 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside 6% vs -5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSFT and NTAP 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +9
- 67 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +7
- 70 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 67 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +3
- 70 vs 67
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 5 when MSFT moved ahead of NTAP.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NTAP
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.29%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure 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 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 +3.45%, 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.
- 1NTAP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2NTAP 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 — 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
NTAP leads on balance| Metric | MSFT | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | 21.3% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 24.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 114.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 2.02 |
Performance
NTAP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MSFT | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | -12% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | 8.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 36.3% | 26.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.4% | 87.8% |
| Year to date | 10% | 96.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4% | 75.9% |
Technicals
NTAP has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.3 | 49.9 |
| ADX (14) | 34.6 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22% | 44.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 46.5% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | 2.4 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -21.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -12.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 33% | 45.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSFT or NTAP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against NTAP's 58. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. NTAP 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 NTAP the better buy right now?
MSFT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 MSFT over NTAP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; MSFT leads Quality by 19 points; MSFT leads Momentum by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MSFT or NTAP?
Analyst price targets imply +6% upside for MSFT and -5% for NTAP, 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 NTAP?
NTAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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 NTAP?
NTAP 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 NTAP?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 19 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 NTAP?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 NTAP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.9% vs 70.7%; operating margin 46.8% vs 24.1%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 114.2%. MSFT leads on one measure and NTAP 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 NTAP getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-05, when MSFT moved ahead of NTAP.
What would change the MSFT vs NTAP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTAP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; NTAP 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 — 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 NTAP?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. NTAP: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 NTAP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MSFT and NTAP 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.