MSFT vs ZTS Stock Comparison
Compare MSFT vs ZTS 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 ZTS?
MSFT and ZTS 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 Zoetis Inc.
MSFT and ZTS are effectively level
MSFT and ZTS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Microsoft Corporation
Zoetis Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate MSFT and ZTS as of Oct 21, 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 Zoetis Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare MSFT and ZTS 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 70MSFT +19
- Value44 vs 62ZTS +18
- Risk Resilience67 vs 62MSFT +5
- Momentum70 vs 74ZTS +4
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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
ZTSZTS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZTSZTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
ZTSZTS on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
MSFTMSFT on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
ZTSZTS 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 | ZTS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6% | +19% | ZTS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.5% | +59.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MSFT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.22% | 20.11% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.090 | $0.800 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.400 | $2.000 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #93 | #14 |
ZTS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 20.11% a year against MSFT's 10.22%. 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 | 67 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | ZTSon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 9.1%; EPS growth 12.4% vs 16.2%; TTM ROE 33.2% vs 69.3%; gross margin 67.9% vs 70.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 37% — ZTS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZTS | Value 44 vs 62 |
| Technicals | MSFT | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 7.3%; vs 200-day 22% vs -16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | MSFT | Risk Resilience 67 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | ZTS | Target upside 6% vs 19% |
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 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
ZTS leads on balance| Metric | MSFT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 9.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.4% | 16.2% |
| Gross margin | 67.9% | 70.9% |
| Operating margin | 46.8% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.2% | 69.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 2.93 |
Performance
MSFT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MSFT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | 7.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | 9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 36.3% | 7.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.4% | -32.3% |
| Year to date | 10% | -36.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4% | -44.1% |
Technicals
MSFT has the stronger structure| Metric | MSFT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.3 | 81.8 |
| ADX (14) | 34.6 | 27 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22% | -16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 25.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, MSFT or ZTS?
Analyst price targets imply +6% upside for MSFT and +19% for ZTS, so the Street currently favors ZTS. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, MSFT or ZTS?
ZTS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 ZTS?
ZTS 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 ZTS?
ZTS on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 ZTS?
MSFT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MSFT on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 ZTS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.9% vs 70.9%; operating margin 46.8% vs 37%; ttm roe 33.2% vs 69.3%. MSFT leads on one measure and ZTS 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.
Compare MSFT and ZTS 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.