MSFT vs UMH Stock Comparison
MSFT currently leads UMH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality, while UMH has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between MSFT and UMH?
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 UMH Properties, Inc.
MSFT leads
MSFT leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors UMH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MSFT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Microsoft Corporation
UMH Properties, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSFT over UMH, 67 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. MSFT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while UMH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MSFT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UMH. 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Microsoft Corporation and UMH Properties, 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 UMH 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 43MSFT +46
- Momentum70 vs 41MSFT +29
- Risk Resilience67 vs 75UMH +8
- Value44 vs 47Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MSFT. MSFT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; UMH keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
MSFT's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MSFT and UMH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSFT (Microsoft Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
UMH (UMH Properties, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
MSFTMSFT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UMHUMH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MSFTMSFT on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
UMHUMH on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
UMHUMH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MSFT, analyst targets favor UMH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MSFT | UMH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6% | +18.2% | UMH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.5% | +2.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 2 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MSFT | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.22% | 4.33% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.090 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.400 | $0.890 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #93 | #19 |
MSFT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.22% a year against UMH's 4.33%. 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
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 48 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 8.8%; EPS growth 12.4% vs 66.7%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 3.5%; gross margin 67.9% vs 51.4%; operating margin 46.8% vs 17.9% — MSFT takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 44 vs 47 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 22% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | UMH | Risk Resilience 67 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | UMH | Target upside 6% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSFT and UMH 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 wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 21 – Oct 20MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSFT +19
- 67 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- MSFT +22
- 70 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +19
- 67 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +17
- 70 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 30 when MSFT moved ahead of UMH.
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
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only UMH
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.34%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1UMH closes the Quality gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge.
- 2UMH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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 | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 8.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | 66.7% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 51.4% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 3.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.89 |
Performance
MSFT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MSFT | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 36.3% | -0.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.4% | -1.5% |
| Year to date | 10% | -3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4% | 8.2% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.3 | 49.5 |
| ADX (14) | 34.6 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 17.9% |
Risk
UMH is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -7.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 33% | 19.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSFT or UMH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MSFT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against UMH's 48. The edge comes from quality and momentum. UMH is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 UMH 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 UMH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MSFT leads Quality by 46 points; MSFT leads Momentum by 29 points; UMH leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MSFT or UMH?
Analyst price targets imply +6% upside for MSFT and +18.2% for UMH, so the Street currently favors UMH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MSFT. 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 UMH?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 UMH?
UMH 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 UMH?
MSFT on the Momentum factor, by 29 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 UMH?
UMH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UMH on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 UMH?
MSFT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.9% vs 51.4%; operating margin 46.8% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 3.5%.
Is MSFT's lead over UMH getting stronger or weaker?
MSFT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-30, when MSFT moved ahead of UMH.
What would change the MSFT vs UMH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UMH closes the Quality gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSFT's edge; UMH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; 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 UMH?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. UMH: 2 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 UMH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MSFT and UMH 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.