MSFT vs QRVO Stock Comparison
QRVO currently leads MSFT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 65. The clearest difference is value, while MSFT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between MSFT and QRVO?
QRVO leads the current stock comparison as Qorvo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Microsoft Corporation vs Qorvo, Inc.
QRVO leads
QRVO leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from MSFT.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support QRVO, and the lead recently changed hands.
Microsoft Corporation
Qorvo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QRVO over MSFT, 66 versus 65 as of Oct 31, 2026. QRVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while MSFT holds the stronger quality profile. QRVO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QRVO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. QRVO lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; QRVO now leads by 1.
Compare Microsoft Corporation and Qorvo, 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 QRVO 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 56MSFT +33
- Value44 vs 71QRVO +27
- Risk Resilience69 vs 76QRVO +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor QRVO. QRVO’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; MSFT keeps a meaningful quality 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.
QRVO'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 QRVO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QRVO (Qorvo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
QRVOQRVO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
QRVOQRVO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
QRVOQRVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QRVOQRVO on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
QRVOQRVO 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 | QRVO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.3% | +12% | QRVO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.5% | +22.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QRVO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 65 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs -2.9%; EPS growth 12.4% vs 203.1%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 11.4%; gross margin 67.9% vs 48.2%; operating margin 46.8% vs 13.1% — MSFT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | QRVO | Value 44 vs 71 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 2.1% vs -6.1%; vs 200-day 21.4% vs 26.1% |
| Risk Resilience | QRVO | Risk Resilience 69 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | QRVO | Target upside 10.3% vs 12% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSFT and QRVO 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 QRVO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28QRVO lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; QRVO now leads by 1.
- Today
- QRVO +1
- 65 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- QRVO +2
- 64 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +5
- 71 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- QRVO +1
- 61 vs 62
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when QRVO moved ahead of MSFT.
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 is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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.
- 1MSFT closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge.
- 2MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3QRVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | -2.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | 203.1% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 48.2% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 13.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 11.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.45 |
Performance
QRVO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MSFT | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.5% | 13.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.7% | 30.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.1% | 45.1% |
| Year to date | 9.8% | 35.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.4% | 25.4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 58.2 |
| ADX (14) | 24.7 | 32.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.1% | -6.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21.4% | 26.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 59.3% |
Risk
QRVO is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.02 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.03 | 1 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.9% | 39.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSFT or QRVO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QRVO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against MSFT's 65. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. MSFT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 QRVO the better buy right now?
QRVO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QRVO over MSFT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 33 points; QRVO leads Value by 27 points; QRVO leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MSFT or QRVO?
Analyst price targets imply +10.3% upside for MSFT and +12% for QRVO, so the Street currently favors QRVO. 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 QRVO?
QRVO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QRVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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 QRVO?
QRVO 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 QRVO?
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 QRVO?
QRVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QRVO on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 QRVO?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.9% vs 48.2%; operating margin 46.8% vs 13.1%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 11.4%.
Is QRVO's lead over MSFT getting stronger or weaker?
QRVO lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; QRVO now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when QRVO moved ahead of MSFT.
What would change the MSFT vs QRVO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSFT closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge; MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; QRVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 QRVO?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. QRVO: 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 QRVO 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.