Skip to main content
Preview

Research from Friday’s close · next update overnight after Monday’s close

Sagehood30
MSFT

MSFT Research brief

Microsoft

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$521.91(−1.55%)

Sagehood’s view on MSFT

Microsoft · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

60Neutral50 is balancedScore change −2 since 2026-10-29, from 62 to 60; view unchanged at Neutral. Compare the two recordsConfidence 60 · It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.Confidence across the 100 names in this research run: 45 to 70, median 55.
How to read this score

In Sagehood30 · book 2026-10-30In the current Top-7 book

Dated research brief

WhyMicrosoft's profitability drives the neutral view, because a 47.1% operating margin and $59,957 million of free cash flow meet a $169.8 base value 67% below the close. The unresolved risk is 0.42 cash conversion.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case against the neutral view is the 47.1% operating margin with $59,957 million of free cash flow and a 0.22% positive earnings reaction. That profitability could keep the multiple supported despite the $169.8 base value.
Break conditionFrom the financial specialist: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median would break the profitability claim.Tests that specialist’s reading, not this page’s whole Neutral view.

Sagehood does not check this condition automatically. See research limitations below.

Valuation range

No model fair value · the discounted cash flow model declined

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($169.80) and the peer-multiple estimate ($527.63) were 3.1 times apart. The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.

Close $521.91 (recorded) on 2026-10-30; estimates use fundamentals to 2026-09-30.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)
Bear
$65.40
Base
$169.80
Bull
$326.30

The model’s own grid cells, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Against peers

Information Technology
MultipleMSFTGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)27.25×32.93×42nd
P/S11.22×6.59×70th
P/B8.26×8.35×44th
FCF yield1.54%2.61%26th
Score details & research limitations9 unavailable fields
Conditions Sagehood can check on its ownNot available in this run. A written break condition is not an automated check; this run does not provide a source-linked rule Sagehood can verify on its own.

Where the break condition comes from: Sagehood research took this condition from the financial specialist. It tests that specialist’s own reading, so it does not say everything that would change this page’s Neutral view.

How to read this research

The score expresses the published research view. 50 is balanced.

Bullish, Neutral or Bearish beside the score is the direction of that view, set by the research from the score: 65 and above is Bullish, 45 to 64 Neutral, 44 and below Bearish.

Confidence is how well the evidence supports this view, not which way it points: Sagehood research is asked to keep it no higher than its most confident specialist, and lower when the specialists disagree or much of the evidence is weak. It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.

Source verification checks the identity and origin of evidence. It does not prove that a claim is correct or that an investment will succeed.

Valuation estimates depend on their inputs and assumptions. They are not guaranteed future prices.

Retrospective research looks back at an earlier period. It is not a verified record of a decision made then using only information available then.

Unavailable is not zero. Read the adjacent reason: information may be missing, unverified or deliberately withheld.

How Sagehood works

The session this view is fixed to

Close$521.91 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−1.55%
First eligible market session2026-11-02

Recorded score context

Specialist source coverage7 of 10 specialists have a verified source on this run. 3 do not.
Score reconciliationThe 7 specialist contributions shown add up to the weighted starting point this score was built from.
Change since the last accepted run62 on 2026-10-29 → 60 on 2026-10-30 (−2 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.
The run this is compared withResearch of 2026-10-29

Not in this run: Run-specific score definition, Confidence band, Horizon, Why the score changed, Today's unexplained move and Blockers.

What this was built from

Filing cited in the evidenceNot recorded on this card. The newest filing on record is under Key financials, and recent filings are listed under SEC filings.
Peer set27 names in Information Technology, listed with how they were chosen under “Valuation & peers”. The peer-implied median is under “Valuation & peers”.

Not in this run: Company profile date and Standing disclosure.

Not available in this run

9 fields are unavailable. Each is identified with its reason above; missing information is not zero or a negative research signal.

Price context

· adjusted close $521.91

+48.2% from 2026-06-25

Recent price-basis check: 2026-10-02 to 2026-10-30 (20 sessions). Economic comparability outside this window remains unchecked.

MSFT adjusted close
Adjusted price · USD · viewing 2026-06-25 to 2026-10-30

Selected 2026-10-30. MSFT adjusted close. Continuous series. $521.91 US dollars.

90 daily adjusted-price observations through 2026-10-30, ending at the 2026-10-30 research date. The final point is a dated final close. Shown for context, not point-in-time research evidence: the research used the prices recorded with it.

Use the arrow keys on the chart to step through observations.

Published score history

2026-07-23 to 2026-10-30 · 37 publications

Each point is a verified published score. The line breaks where the research method changed (4 methods, numbered in the order they were first used), so scores are not joined across methods. Hollow points were published after their decision window (retrospective).

Every published score and confidence
Research dateScoreViewConfidenceMethod
2026-10-3060Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-2962Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-2862Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-2760Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-2659Neutral65Method 4
2026-10-2360Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-2258Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-2160Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-1660Neutral62Method 4
2026-10-0963Neutral62Method 4
2026-10-0766Bullish62Method 4
2026-10-0258Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-0165Bullish64Method 4
2026-09-3057Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-2957Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-2858Neutral65Method 4
2026-09-2558Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective56Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-2354Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-1852Neutral85Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective50Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective52Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-0450Neutral65Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective53Neutral61Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective52Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-2853Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective51Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective53Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective50Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective50Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-1454Neutral61Method 2
2026-08-1355Neutral61Method 1
2026-08-0753Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0653Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0453Neutral60Method 1
2026-07-3154Neutral63Method 1
2026-07-2343Bearish57Method 1

Specialists

7 of 10 published specialist analyses are available.

Each specialist’s view is shown as the published research recorded it; supporting detail appears only when it was recorded with that same view.

3 unavailable

MSFT research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Neutral

Microsoft pairs a 47.1% operating margin and net cash with 17.9% revenue growth, but free-cash-flow conversion of 0.42 trails the sector, so cash conversion is the soft spot.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: trailing-twelve-month revenue reached $346,445 million with 17.9% growth to 2026-09-30, below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, while trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 47.1% against the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and trailing-twelve-month free cash flow was $59,957 million.

Why it matters now

A 47.1% operating margin and net cash of $64,509 million against $35,481 million of debt support durable profitability, but 17.9% revenue growth trails the sector and free-cash-flow conversion of 0.42 is below the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median.

What could change the view

Countercase: The 10-Q filed on 2026-10-28 is not yet reflected in these facts, and free-cash-flow conversion of 0.42 sits below the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, so cash conversion may read worse once that filing is captured. Falsifier: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median would break the profitability claim.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
51
Evidence confidence
80
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
10.40
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.21
Weighted contribution
10.86
Business driver
Trailing-twelve-month revenue reached $346,445 million with 17.9% growth to 2026-09-30, below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, while trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 47.1% against the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and trailing-twelve-month free cash flow was $59,957 million.
Mechanism
A 47.1% operating margin and net cash of $64,509 million against $35,481 million of debt support durable profitability, but 17.9% revenue growth trails the sector and free-cash-flow conversion of 0.42 is below the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median.
Countercase
The 10-Q filed on 2026-10-28 is not yet reflected in these facts, and free-cash-flow conversion of 0.42 sits below the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, so cash conversion may read worse once that filing is captured.
Contributions & coverage details

Specialist contributions

Each specialist’s recorded numbers, in the usual specialist order, as recorded: nothing is re-ranked or recalculated. Weights and contributions show two decimals; hover for the exact value.

Financial specialist

Neutral

Score
51
Evidence confidence
80
Weight in the score
0.21
Weighted contribution
10.86

Risk specialist

Neutral

Score
62
Evidence confidence
65
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
6.60

Sector specialist

Neutral

Score
58
Evidence confidence
72
Weight in the score
0.15
Weighted contribution
8.55

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.03
Weighted contribution
1.69

News specialist

Neutral

Score
58
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.14
Weighted contribution
7.84

Price-trend specialist

Bullish

Score
68
Evidence confidence
65
Weight in the score
0.27
Weighted contribution
18.10

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.10
Weighted contribution
4.91

Published specialist analyses unavailable: Valuation specialist, Geopolitics specialist, Social-media specialist. No specialist result is inferred.

  • Valuation specialist: The valuation specialist did not vote on this run because the valuation model declined to give a fair value: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($169.80) and the peer-multiple estimate ($527.63) were 3.1 times apart. The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.
  • Geopolitics specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.
  • Social-media specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.

How this insight was formed

Each specialist view shown here is checked against the published research files. Sagehood research combined those views into the one Research Score above.

Evidence & method

Inspect the reasoning, source records and valuation behind this dated view.

Sagehood research reasoningSpecialist reasoning, selected statements and filing context
Accepted publication2026-10-30 researchNext eligible session 2026-11-02point-in-time

MSFT: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

60

Neutral50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Financial specialist

Neutral

Specialist score 51Evidence confidence 80
What the specialist sees

Trailing-twelve-month revenue reached $346,445 million with 17.9% growth to 2026-09-30, below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, while trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 47.1% against the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and trailing-twelve-month free cash flow was $59,957 million.

Why it matters

A 47.1% operating margin and net cash of $64,509 million against $35,481 million of debt support durable profitability, but 17.9% revenue growth trails the sector and free-cash-flow conversion of 0.42 is below the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median.

What argues against it

The 10-Q filed on 2026-10-28 is not yet reflected in these facts, and free-cash-flow conversion of 0.42 sits below the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, so cash conversion may read worse once that filing is captured.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median would break the profitability claim.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 58.54. Sagehood research’s adjustment was +1.46. 62 on 2026-10-29 → 60 on 2026-10-30 (−2 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.

Evidence Sagehood research weighed

These selected claims are evidence Sagehood research weighed, not a reconstruction of the numeric adjustment.

Claims as this research published them. Sagehood confirms each claim and its support were published together with this research. That is not an independent check, and it does not prove the claim is accurate or predict future performance.

  1. Financial specialist

    Same statement as under “What the specialist sees” above.

  2. Price-trend specialist

    MSFT closed at 521.91 on 2026-10-30, 4.0% below its 52-week high, with the 5-year channel at trend-channel position 0.11 standard deviations and the 90-day at −1.47.

  3. Risk specialist

    MSFT shows twenty-day annualized volatility of 19.7 against sixty-day annualized volatility of 21.0, drawdown from the one-year high of −4.0 versus maximum one-year drawdown of −32.5, one-year large daily-move count of 8, downside beta of 0.8 against SPY beta of 1.0, and worst five-day return over one year of −14.4.

Sagehood research decision

The investment case, main risk and break condition are the ones shown under Sagehood’s view at the top of this page.

Recorded break condition
Break condition as kept in the decision trail

A later reading showing TTM operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median would break the profitability claim.

Evidence & sourcesClaim-support availability, filing-context links and research method

MSFT: This run has no checked links from its claims to their evidence. The specialists’ writing is shown as recorded, and no missing evidence is filled in.

Accepted research

Research dated 2026-10-30.

How this research was made

This research is AI-generated and is not investment advice.

Research date
2026-10-30
Valuation & peersInput limits notedFair-value cells, peer multiples and the inputs behind the range

Valuation: the model declined to give a fair value

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $521.91 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-09-30.

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($169.80) and the peer-multiple estimate ($527.63) were 3.1 times apart.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)

The discounted cash flow grid cells this run nominated, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Bear
$65.40−87% vs close
Base
$169.80−67% vs close
Bull
$326.30−37% vs close

The bear case sits more than 5× from the close: an extreme scenario, shown as the model computed it.

Implied by the median of 3 peer-median multiples: $527.63 (+1.1% vs close)

Peers: the 27 Liquid 100 names in Information Technology that this run priced. Companies outside the Liquid 100 are not in the set.

The 27 names

AAPL, AMD, APH, AVGO, CRM, CRWD, CSCO, DELL, GEN, GLW, HPE, HPQ, INTC, KLAC, LRCX, MCHP, MRVL, MU, NOW, NVDA, ON, ORCL, PLTR, QCOM, SMCI, SNDK, WDC.

Multiples against the peer group

Information Technology · 27 companies in the group

Sector median includes AVGO, whose per-share figure failed the share-basis check in this research.

  • Price to earnings (trailing twelve months)27.25×

    Peer median 32.93× · middle half 19.24× to 49.15× · 42nd percentile of the group

  • Price to sales11.22×

    Peer median 6.59× · middle half 4.55× to 12.88× · 70th percentile of the group

  • Price to book8.26×

    Peer median 8.35× · middle half 6.41× to 15.99× · 44th percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield1.54%

    Peer median 2.61% · middle half 1.54% to 5.43% · 26th percentile of the group

This run declares Enterprise value to EBITDA and computes no value for it, for this company or for its peer group.

Evidence limits: 3 valuation inputs required conservative handling: another valuation input required conservative handling; depreciation and amortization were available but not used because this version does not compute an EV/EBITDA multiple.

Includes the currently displayed specialist or comparison, not every specialist. Dates and limitations remain attached.

Sagehood research is for general information. It is not individualized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

Microsoft (MSFT) research | Sagehood