MSFT vs ZBH Stock Comparison
Compare MSFT vs ZBH on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between MSFT and ZBH?
MSFT and ZBH are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Microsoft Corporation vs Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
MSFT and ZBH are effectively level
MSFT and ZBH are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Microsoft Corporation
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate MSFT and ZBH as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Microsoft Corporation and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, 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 ZBH 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 57MSFT +32
- Value44 vs 66ZBH +22
- Momentum60 vs 80ZBH +20
- Risk Resilience69 vs 55MSFT +14
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
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; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MSFT and ZBH both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
MSFTMSFT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZBHZBH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
ZBHZBH on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | MSFT | ZBH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.3% | +10.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +56.5% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MSFT | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.22% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.090 | $0.960 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.400 | $0.960 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #93 | #349 |
MSFT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.22% a year against ZBH's 0.00%. 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 65 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | MSFTon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 12.4% vs -15.6%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 6.4%; gross margin 67.9% vs 69.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 15.7% — MSFT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZBH | Value 44 vs 66 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 2.1% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 21.4% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 69 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 10.3% vs 10.4% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30MSFT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 65 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- ZBH +1
- 64 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- MSFT +19
- 71 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- MSFT +2
- 65 vs 63
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when ZBH 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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ZBH
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 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.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.55%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.03%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | -15.6% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 69.9% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 15.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.59 |
Performance
MSFT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MSFT | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.5% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.7% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.1% | 14.2% |
| Year to date | 9.8% | 7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.4% | -6.4% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 73.3 |
| ADX (14) | 24.7 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.1% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21.4% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 28.4% |
Risk
MSFT is the more resilient| Metric | MSFT | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.02 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.03 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -34.9% | -22.9% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -6.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.9% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, MSFT or ZBH?
Analyst price targets imply +10.3% upside for MSFT and +10.4% for ZBH. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, MSFT or ZBH?
ZBH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 ZBH?
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 ZBH?
ZBH on the Momentum factor, by 20 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 ZBH?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 ZBH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.9% vs 69.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 15.7%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 6.4%. MSFT leads on two measures and ZBH 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.
What do the current signals say about MSFT and ZBH?
MSFT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZBH: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 ZBH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MSFT and ZBH 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.