MSFT vs REGN Stock Comparison
REGN currently leads MSFT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 67. The clearest difference is momentum, while MSFT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between MSFT and REGN?
REGN leads the current stock comparison as Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Microsoft Corporation vs Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
REGN leads
REGN leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from MSFT. Wall Street currently favors MSFT on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support REGN, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Microsoft Corporation
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors REGN over MSFT, 68 versus 67 as of Oct 21, 2026. REGN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while MSFT holds the stronger quality profile. REGN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MSFT. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor REGN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. REGN lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REGN now leads by 1.
Compare Microsoft Corporation and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, 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 REGN 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 91REGN +21
- Quality89 vs 73MSFT +16
- Risk Resilience67 vs 60MSFT +7
- Value44 vs 48REGN +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor REGN. REGN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; MSFT keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum +17
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
The lead changed hands: REGN moved ahead of MSFT in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MSFT and REGN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
REGN (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals.
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
REGNREGN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
REGNREGN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
REGNREGN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
REGNREGN on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
MSFTMSFT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors REGN, analyst targets favor MSFT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MSFT | REGN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6% | +2.7% | MSFT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.5% | +47% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 20 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor REGN. 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 | 67 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | REGNon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 19%; EPS growth 12.4% vs 80.1%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 13.8%; gross margin 67.9% vs 84.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 25.6% — REGN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | REGN | Value 44 vs 48 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 1.9%; vs 200-day 22% vs 9.8% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 67 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | MSFT | Target upside 6% vs 2.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSFT and REGN 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 2 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)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 REGN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20REGN lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REGN now leads by 1.
- Today
- REGN +1
- 67 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +5
- 70 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +18
- 67 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +2
- 70 vs 68
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when REGN 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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only REGN
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.2%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.22%, AIQ +4 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 Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to REGN's edge.
- 2MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3REGN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
REGN leads on balance| Metric | MSFT | REGN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 19% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | 80.1% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 84.9% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 25.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 13.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.06 |
Performance
MSFT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MSFT | REGN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | 7.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | 0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 36.3% | 24% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.4% | 8% |
| Year to date | 10% | 4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4% | 41.9% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | REGN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.3 | 64.8 |
| ADX (14) | 34.6 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22% | 9.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 31.2% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | REGN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | 1.7 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -26.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -5.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 33% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSFT or REGN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, REGN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against MSFT's 67. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 REGN the better buy right now?
REGN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 REGN over MSFT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. REGN leads Momentum by 21 points; MSFT leads Quality by 16 points; MSFT 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 REGN?
Analyst price targets imply +6% upside for MSFT and +2.7% for REGN, so the Street currently favors MSFT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors REGN. 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 REGN?
REGN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. REGN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 REGN?
REGN 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 REGN?
REGN on the Momentum factor, by 21 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 REGN?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT 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 REGN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.9% vs 84.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 25.6%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 13.8%. MSFT leads on two measures and REGN 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 REGN's lead over MSFT getting stronger or weaker?
REGN lead: Reversed — MSFT led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REGN now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when REGN moved ahead of MSFT.
What would change the MSFT vs REGN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSFT closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to REGN's edge; MSFT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; REGN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 REGN?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. REGN: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 REGN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MSFT and REGN 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.