Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$493.78
▼ $3.97 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:09 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$3.67T
Day Range
$491.10 - $498.65
52-Week Range
$349.20 - $553.72
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$377.39
Resistance
$517.78
MSFT is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-2.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 19/30 factors positiveRisk: Medium
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 31.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $188.63 vs. price $493.78 (-61.8%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (65/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
74/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+1.3%
Median 40D Outcome
73/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+3.4% … +7.1%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.4% … +0.4%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-4.3% … -2.6%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.0%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
7 occurrence(s) · 71% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 27% (11%–52%) | +0.5% | -2.5% … +1.4% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 27% (11%–52%) | +0.2% | -2.3% … +1.6% | +1.2% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.0% | -2.9% … +4.3% | +2.1% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | -5.9% … +8.1% | +3.9% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.7% | -7.0% … +13.2% | +5.8% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-03-20 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +3.6% | +8.9% |
| 2023-09-19 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +1.0% | +13.9% |
| 2021-12-09 | 74/100 | Uptrend | -5.7% | -17.2% |
| 2024-12-27 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +2.7% | -9.3% |
| 2019-05-14 | 73/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +5.4% | +11.4% |
| 2023-10-20 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +13.2% | +20.6% |
| 2023-06-21 | 73/100 | Uptrend | +4.0% | -1.0% |
| 2023-07-12 | 73/100 | Uptrend | -4.4% | -5.3% |
| 2025-08-18 | 72/100 | Uptrend | -1.6% | -1.6% |
| 2024-11-19 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +4.7% | -0.7% |
| 2023-08-23 | 72/100 | Consolidation | -2.3% | +15.0% |
| 2021-01-11 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +12.1% | +16.4% |
| 2023-12-04 | 70/100 | Uptrend | +0.4% | +12.6% |
| 2025-11-18 | 69/100 | Consolidation | -3.6% | -19.6% |
| 2025-01-16 | 69/100 | Consolidation | -3.8% | -8.7% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLK (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
68
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
20d ago · $513.53
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 55)
What happened after
23d ago · $505.06
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 56)
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 16, 2026
Then
70
$497.12
Now
68
$493.78
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
65
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
73
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
79
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MSFT...
The provided sources do not contain any direct or recent media coverage specifically about Microsoft. The headlines focus on unrelated topics such as AI’s impact on data centers, Oracle’s stock performance, AI-related IPOs, and broader tech and energy sector discussions. No explicit details about Microsoft’s recent activities, events, or news are mentioned.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Microsoft. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
36
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
79
Technical
73
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price (3M)
+30%
Market Narrative
75
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant **overconfidence** bias, reinforced by a massive valuation gap (+162% above DCF) and price momentum exceeding fundamental growth. The **euphoria** score aligns closely, driven by extreme sentiment and detached pricing. Herding is muted despite peer underperformance, implying selective participation rather than blind following. The **narrative gap** (79 vs. 42) widens expectations vs. fundamentals, a classic overconfidence red flag. The key question: *Will traders remain detached from fair value, or will external catalysts force a reassessment?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:49 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AI Could Nearly Triple America's Data Center Footprint by 2030"
"Microsoft-Backed OpenAI Acknowledges AI Agents Misused External Wikis"
📈 24D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for Microsoft reflects deep philosophical differences among these methodologies. At the top, **Edgar Lawrence Smith** and **Peter Lynch** see it as a long-term powerhouse—Smith’s ultra-bullish 'buy and hold' score and Lynch’s growth optimism suggest they prioritize sustained momentum and undervaluation relative to potential. **Thorstein Veblen**, meanwhile, aligns with this growth narrative but with slightly less conviction, emphasizing real value creation as the catalyst. In contrast, **Benjamin Graham** and his variants reject the stock outright, scoring it as dangerously overvalued even for his risk-tolerant 'Enterprising Investor' framework, highlighting a strict focus on margin of safety. Meanwhile, **Jesse Livermore’s** neutral stance and **Burton Malkiel/Bogle’s** skepticism toward active picking underscore skepticism about trend clarity or market inefficiency, while **Howard Marks’** mixed verdicts—both cycle-aware and expectation-driven—split between caution and cautious optimism. The middle ground, occupied by **Fisher, Loeb, and Housel**, acknowledges solid fundamentals but lacks the exceptional quality or effortless holdability to justify aggressive bets.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 91
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 83
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 72
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 60
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 59
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 54
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 53
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 51
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 47
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 47
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 17
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 13
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 2 bearish · 1 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
67.9%
Operating Margin
46.8%
Net Margin
40.3%
EBITDA Margin
46.8%
ROE
30.2%
ROA
17.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$18.00
Cash
$20.93B
Total Debt
$40.29B
Current Ratio
1.23
Debt/Equity
0.09
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 20.8.2026 | $0.910 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.910 |
| 20.5.2026 | $0.910 |
| 19.2.2026 | $0.910 |
| 18.2.2026 | $0.910 |
| 20.11.2025 | $0.910 |
| 19.11.2025 | $0.910 |
| 21.8.2025 | $0.830 |
| 20.8.2025 | $0.830 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.830 |
| 14.5.2025 | $0.830 |
| 20.2.2025 | $0.830 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$493.78
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$188.63
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-61.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
16.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16.1% | $77.79B | $71.37B |
| 2 | 12.7% | $87.69B | $73.81B |
| 3 | 9.3% | $95.86B | $74.02B |
| 4 | 5.9% | $101.52B | $71.92B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $104.06B | $67.63B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$66.99B
Terminal Value
$1.64T
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.07T
Enterprise Value
$1.43T
Net Debt
$19.36B
Equity Value
$1.41T
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$59.36
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$40.81
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Benzinga · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Microsoft (MSFT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 68/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
MSFT currently scores 68/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, MSFT's estimated fair value is $188.63, which is 61.8% below the current price of $493.78. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MSFT's technical score is 73/100, which currently reads as bullish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 31.6%; Net income growth: 31.3%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $188.63 vs. price $493.78 (-61.8%); Calmar: 0.42 (3y annualized return 14.5% / max drawdown 34.9%); Free cash flow growth: -6.5%.
Yes — MSFT has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PETERSON SANDRA E | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 48.902 | +48.902 | — |
| Johnston Hugh F | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 4.341 | +4.341 | — |
| MacGregor Catherine | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 4.405 | +4.405 | — |
| Mason Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 0.787 | +0.787 | — |
| Rainey John D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 0.778 | +0.778 | — |
| Hoffman Reid | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 31.692 | +31.692 | — |
| List Teri | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 42.639 | +42.639 | — |
| Di Sibio Carmine | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 0.255 | +0.255 | — |
| Walmsley Emma N | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 2.563 | +2.563 | — |
| PRITZKER PENNY S | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 26.838 | +26.838 | — |
| SMITH BRADFORD L | Gift | 9.9.2026 | 14,000 | -14,000 | — |
| Johnston Hugh F | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 210.126 | +210.126 | — |
| Hoffman Reid | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 187.613 | +187.613 | — |
| MacGregor Catherine | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 205.123 | +205.123 | — |
| Rainey John D | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 125.075 | +125.075 | — |
| PRITZKER PENNY S | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 200.12 | +200.12 | — |
| Di Sibio Carmine | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 125.075 | +125.075 | — |
| STANTON JOHN W | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 125 | +125 | — |
| SCHARF CHARLES W | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 125 | +125 | — |
| Mason Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 195.117 | +195.117 | — |
| List Teri | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 125 | +125 | — |
| Walmsley Emma N | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 125.075 | +125.075 | — |
| PETERSON SANDRA E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 230.138 | +230.138 | — |
| Nadella Satya | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,360 | -1,360 | $505.20 |
| Nadella Satya | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 5,080 | -5,080 | $499.45 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
74,451,155 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 81,311,791 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.3% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology