In 10 minutes you know what the company is worth.
On your assumptions, not ours.
For investors who know how to value a company but don't have every evening for it. AI-powered fundamental stock analysis. You rewrite the assumptions to your own and the target price recalculates in front of you.
Free, no card · verify your e-mail and the analysis starts right away; you watch it run.
Do a fundamental analysis of Microsoft and use it as the basis for a DCF valuation. What factors could most affect intrinsic value?
Microsoft (MSFT): Fundamental Analysis and DCF Valuation
Bottom line: Microsoft is a quality company with a strong competitive position, but according to the DCF model, today's price ($464.72) sits closer to the upper edge of what the fundamentals justify: the realistic (base) scenario comes out at $375, below the current price. The key question for intrinsic value isn't revenue growth, but how quickly the massive surge in AI and cloud infrastructure investment normalizes.
Microsoft is a mega-cap technology company (market cap ~$3.45 trillion) built on enterprise software and cloud; its main revenue comes from Azure/server cloud services (39% of revenue) and Microsoft 365 Commercial subscriptions (30.7%).
Business quality (moat)
According to the analysis, Microsoft has a strong but not exceptional moat (69/90). Its strongest attribute is switching costs (8/10): enterprise customers have Microsoft 365, Azure, identity, and Windows deeply embedded in their workflows, making a move to a competitor costly and risky. Counterargument: Azure faces strong competition from AWS and Google Cloud; the moat isn't homogeneous across the whole business.
Financial health
Revenue is growing strongly: $331.8B, +17.8% year over year (5-year CAGR of 14.6%). Operating margin improved from 37% to 46.8%, showing real operating leverage. The balance sheet is very healthy: net debt is just 0.52× EBITDA, with interest coverage above 50×.
Here's the key "but": free cash flow (FCF), the cash a company actually has left after investing, is deteriorating. FCF margin fell from 31.6% (2020) to 20.2% (2026), as data center and AI investment (CAPEX) jumped from 18.9% to 34.9% of revenue. Earnings-to-cash conversion dropped from 1.02× to 0.50×; accounting profit now overstates how much cash the company actually generates.
DCF valuation: three scenarios
| Scenario | Target price | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | $571.68 | 30% |
| Base | $375.46 | 45% |
| Bear | $234.54 | 25% |
| Weighted average | $399.10 | — |
Bull: Azure/AI monetization accelerates and the CAPEX cycle peaks sooner (2027–28). Bear: the AI "arms race" continues longer, CAPEX stays structurally elevated, and cloud partly commoditizes. The weighted intrinsic value of $399 is about 14% below the market price ($465).
What moves intrinsic value the most
- →The pace of FCF-margin / CAPEX normalization, by far the most significant factor. The gap between bull ($572) and bear ($234) is nearly 2.4×, driven mainly by how fast CAPEX intensity (today 34.9% of revenue) reverts to normal.
- →Growth in the later years: the year-1 growth anchors barely differ between scenarios (16.5–18%); the difference shows up only in the long-run pace.
- →Terminal growth (2.0% vs. 2.5%): a smaller but real effect.
- →WACC stayed stable across scenarios (9.68%, CAPM), so it isn't a major source of the spread.
Sanity check: today's P/E (25.8) is below its historical average (32.0), which looks "cheap." But P/FCF (51.5×) is extremely high; the low P/E is partly earned because of deteriorating cash conversion, not a genuine bargain.
If you want, you can tune the assumptions yourself (CAPEX-normalization pace, WACC, terminal growth) in the interactive DCF panel, and see right away how the target price moves.
From risks in the accounting…
Source: ServiceNow annual reports, split-adjusted.
Stock-based compensation at ServiceNow grew from $870M to $1.96B (14.7% of revenue), share count from 965 to 1,037 million, 7.4% dilution.
"High SBC makes reported profitability look better than the economic reality for current shareholders: the dilution eats into their share of future cash flows."
Share count fell last quarter on buybacks and cash flow grows faster than dilution, a standard software-company trade-off, not evidence of manipulation.
…to insurers.
Lower is better; below 100 underwriting is profitable; the company goal is 96. Source: annual reports and monthly results, 2026 = January–July.
Progressive's combined ratio fell from 94.9% (2023) to 87.4% (2025) and holds at 86.9% through seven months of 2026, against a goal the company sets itself at 96%.
"Combined ratio = loss ratio (claims/premiums) + expense ratio (costs/premiums); below 100% means the company earns on underwriting itself, not just on investing the reserves."
Individual months of 2026 look worse: April at 90.2 against 84.9 a year earlier, and the loss share rose to 66.7% over seven months from 65.9% for full-year 2025, a few months of data, seasonality and catastrophes included.
The same process you would follow.
You just don't have to sit through it. Break down the brief, score the moat, read the statements, build the valuation model, write the conclusion.
The user wants a fundamental analysis of Microsoft as a basis for a DCF valuation, and especially what moves intrinsic value the most. I'll run moat and financials in parallel; valuation runs on their output.
Task · Ticker: MSFT. Assess the breadth and durability of the moat as input for the DCF. Focus: switching costs, intangibles, market position, scalability.
Moat is strong (69/90): the strongest are switching costs (8/10) and market position (8/10). Microsoft 365, Azure, and identity are deeply embedded in enterprise workflows. Weakness: the moat isn't homogeneous: Azure faces AWS and Google Cloud, and the AI buildout is capital-intensive.
Task · Ticker: MSFT. Revenue and margin trends, FCF generation and earnings-to-cash conversion, balance sheet, returns, as inputs for the DCF.
Revenue $331.8B (+17.8%), operating margin 46.8%, ROIC 20.6%, balance sheet strong (net debt/EBITDA 0.52×). But FCF margin fell from 31.6% to 20.2% and earnings-to-cash conversion from 1.02× to 0.50×, driven by CAPEX jumping to 34.9% of revenue (AI/cloud).
Microsoft MSFT competitive moat market position 2026
Microsoft Annual Report 2025
Microsoft FY2026 revenue free cash flow capex margins
Microsoft: FY26 Q4 Press Release (Investor Relations)
Microsoft FY2026 capital expenditures cash conversion 10-K
Microsoft 10-K: SEC EDGAR
Fact check: revenue, margins, FCF, CAPEX, and moat score verified against filings and the earnings release; all valid.
Do you know what your stock's intrinsic value rests on?
You always see which scenario the agent modelled and what has to hold for that fair value to stand.
Task · Ticker: MSFT. Build a DCF on the financials output, bull/base/bear scenarios, identify the most sensitive variable.
Valuation analyst
The spread isn't driven by WACC (9.68%, stable across scenarios) or revenue growth; the year-1 anchors differ only between 16.5% and 18%. Everything hinges on how fast CAPEX intensity reverts from today's 34.9% of revenue back to normal: bull assumes that happens by 2027–28, bear assumes the AI 'arms race' keeps going. That's why $572 and $235 are nearly two and a half times apart.
Source: FMP / analysis
Putting together the basis for the answer. The moat is strong (69/90) but not homogeneous. Microsoft 365's switching costs hold, Azure faces AWS and Google Cloud. From the financials, the key number isn't revenue growth: FCF margin fell from 31.6% to 20.2% and earnings-to-cash conversion from 1.02× to 0.50×, because CAPEX jumped to 34.9% of revenue. Is that the peak of the AI investment cycle, or a structural shift? The whole valuation rests on it: $399 against a price of $464.72 is mild overvaluation, but the bull/bear spread ($572 vs. $234) is too wide for one number. I'll put the thesis, three scenarios, and the sensitivity to CAPEX-normalization pace into the answer, and I'm preparing an interactive DCF widget so the user can rewrite the assumptions themselves.
Source: FMP / analysis
The same process you would follow.
You just don't have to sit through it. Break down the brief, score the moat, read the statements, build the valuation model, write the conclusion.
The user wants a fundamental analysis of Microsoft as a basis for a DCF valuation, and especially what moves intrinsic value the most. I'll run moat and financials in parallel; valuation runs on their output.
Task · Ticker: MSFT. Assess the breadth and durability of the moat as input for the DCF. Focus: switching costs, intangibles, market position, scalability.
Moat is strong (69/90): the strongest are switching costs (8/10) and market position (8/10). Microsoft 365, Azure, and identity are deeply embedded in enterprise workflows. Weakness: the moat isn't homogeneous: Azure faces AWS and Google Cloud, and the AI buildout is capital-intensive.
Task · Ticker: MSFT. Revenue and margin trends, FCF generation and earnings-to-cash conversion, balance sheet, returns, as inputs for the DCF.
Revenue $331.8B (+17.8%), operating margin 46.8%, ROIC 20.6%, balance sheet strong (net debt/EBITDA 0.52×). But FCF margin fell from 31.6% to 20.2% and earnings-to-cash conversion from 1.02× to 0.50×, driven by CAPEX jumping to 34.9% of revenue (AI/cloud).
Microsoft MSFT competitive moat market position 2026
Microsoft Annual Report 2025
Microsoft FY2026 revenue free cash flow capex margins
Microsoft: FY26 Q4 Press Release (Investor Relations)
Microsoft FY2026 capital expenditures cash conversion 10-K
Microsoft 10-K: SEC EDGAR
Fact check: revenue, margins, FCF, CAPEX, and moat score verified against filings and the earnings release; all valid.
Do you know what your stock's intrinsic value rests on?
You always see which scenario the agent modelled and what has to hold for that fair value to stand.
Task · Ticker: MSFT. Build a DCF on the financials output, bull/base/bear scenarios, identify the most sensitive variable.
Valuation analyst
The spread isn't driven by WACC (9.68%, stable across scenarios) or revenue growth; the year-1 anchors differ only between 16.5% and 18%. Everything hinges on how fast CAPEX intensity reverts from today's 34.9% of revenue back to normal: bull assumes that happens by 2027–28, bear assumes the AI 'arms race' keeps going. That's why $572 and $235 are nearly two and a half times apart.
Source: FMP / analysis
Putting together the basis for the answer. The moat is strong (69/90) but not homogeneous. Microsoft 365's switching costs hold, Azure faces AWS and Google Cloud. From the financials, the key number isn't revenue growth: FCF margin fell from 31.6% to 20.2% and earnings-to-cash conversion from 1.02× to 0.50×, because CAPEX jumped to 34.9% of revenue. Is that the peak of the AI investment cycle, or a structural shift? The whole valuation rests on it: $399 against a price of $464.72 is mild overvaluation, but the bull/bear spread ($572 vs. $234) is too wide for one number. I'll put the thesis, three scenarios, and the sensitivity to CAPEX-normalization pace into the answer, and I'm preparing an interactive DCF widget so the user can rewrite the assumptions themselves.
Source: FMP / analysis
Now it's your turn. What do you think Microsoft is worth?
Intrinsic value
MSFTWeighted intrinsic value
Estimate depends on assumptions, even a small change moves intrinsic value noticeably.
Assumptions — Base
Scenario probabilities
Every AI makes mistakes. So:
Reasonstone is built to minimise the room for hallucination.
We hand the model every piece of quantitative data directly, straight from verified providers. Revenue, margins and other numbers are not something the AI goes looking for on the internet.
We use AI only where it is actually needed.
Wherever artificial intelligence falls short, code takes over. The model will not be working out a WACC or a DCF in its head.
Every answer that reaches you has to pass a fact check.
Our system goes through every output of the model and cross-checks it against several sources, so that errors are ruled out.
You do the analysis once. The company keeps changing.
A watchlist that watches the fundamentals, not just the price. When a stock drops, you know whether your thesis broke or the market just got scared.
Six months on, you don't remember what you assumed.
And until you do, you can't tell whether the latest results change anything. ReasonStone compares them for you, against what you put into the model six months ago.
You read the earnings and still don't know if anything changed.
Revenue is up, margins hold. But your thesis rested on a different number. That is exactly what we ask: which of your assumptions does this news affect. When none, you never hear about it.
What gets watched is the thesis from your analysis in the chat, with your assumptions.
FCF margin 18.4% vs. the 22% expected: CAPEX failed to normalize for a second straight quarter.
Reality is tracking the bear branch of your thesis so far. Azure is holding growth above 30%; the moat isn't breaking because of it.
| Metric | Now | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Bear probability | 25 % | 35 % |
| Bull probability | 30 % | 20 % |
| Weighted intrinsic value | 399,12 USD | 365,42 USD |
This is what one finding looks like in the app's inbox.
The day after earnings. A minute to read.
You hold eight companies and follow two.
We watch all of them, all the time, including the ones you had no energy left for.
Azure holds growth above 30% and the moat isn't breaking.
not a statement line
Management frames the CAPEX increase on the earnings call as a temporary cycle peak, not a permanent shift.
not a statement line
FCF margin rises toward the base-case target of 29%+
measured 20,2 % · threshold > 29 %
The analysis takes an evening. The eighteen months you hold it afterwards are the rest of the work, and that costs CZK 349 / mo.
Pricing
When your monthly credit runs out, you can top it up any time.
Price locked for the first 50 customers.
First-month guarantee
Whatever share of your monthly chat and company-tracking credit you don't use, we refund that same share of the price if you cancel. Used 40%? You get 60% back.
Applies only to your first subscription.
Loading…
Which company would you like to break down?
Save the hours you'd spend in the filings.
Free, no card · you start your first analysis right after signing up.