Is Microsoft (MSFT) Overvalued or a Justified Growth Play?

The debate over Microsoft's valuation has intensified as divergent DCF models paint conflicting pictures of its intrinsic value. With the stock trading at $483.62 as of late 2025, investors must grapple with whether Microsoft is a justified growth play or an overvalued tech giant. The answer hinges on the assumptions embedded in discounted cash flow (DCF) models-specifically, the choice between earnings-based and free cash flow (FCF)-based approaches.

Divergent DCF Models: Earnings vs. Free Cash Flow

Earnings-based DCF models, which use metrics like earnings per share (EPS) without non-recurring items (NRI), suggest a more optimistic outlook. For instance, the GuruFocus model estimates Microsoft's intrinsic value at $454.72, implying a 19% discount to the current price. Similarly, the Simply Wall St model arrives at an intrinsic value of $599.56, suggesting the stock is undervalued by 19.4%. These models often assume higher growth rates for earnings, reflecting Microsoft's dominance in cloud computing and AI.

In contrast, FCF-based DCF models, which prioritize cash flows available to all investors, yield significantly lower valuations. The Alpha Spread model calculates an intrinsic value of $221.40, while The Acquirer's Multiple estimates $228.64-both suggesting the stock is overvalued by 49.5% to 53%. This stark divergence arises from differing assumptions about reinvestment needs and the sustainability of cash flows. For example, Microsoft's FY25 results highlight a clear distinction between EBITDA and FCF, underscoring the importance of operational efficiency in valuation.

Assumptions Driving the Gap

The disparity between these models stems from key inputs: growth rates, discount rates, and terminal growth assumptions.

1. Growth Rates:
2. Earnings-based models often assume aggressive growth, with some projecting 12.9% to 27.35% annualized growth for FY2025–FY2026. These figures align with Microsoft's recent outperformance in Azure and AI, which drove Q4 results above expectations.

3. FCF-based models, however, temper optimism. The H-model assumes a declining growth rate from 27.35% to 12.42% over five years, reflecting skepticism about sustaining high FCF growth.

4. Discount Rates:

5. Earnings-based models typically use lower discount rates (7.2% to 10.2%) to reflect Microsoft's stable cash flows and market leadership according to value investing sources.

6. FCF-based models apply higher rates, such as 14.38% (derived from CAPM) or 8.4% (WACC), to account for uncertainties in reinvestment and capital allocation as noted in valuation analysis.

7. Terminal Growth:

8. Most models cap terminal growth at 4.0% to 4.5%, aligning with long-term inflation expectations according to analysts. However, earnings-based models often assume slightly higher terminal growth due to Microsoft's recurring revenue streams.

Margin of Safety and Investor Implications

The margin of safety-a critical concept in value investing-varies widely depending on the model. At $483.62, Microsoft appears overvalued under FCF-based models (negative margin of safety of -49.5%) but undervalued under earnings-based models (16.2% discount per Webull's $608.45 estimate) as reported by Webull. This duality reflects the tension between Microsoft's near-term execution and long-term reinvestment risks.

For conservative investors, the FCF-based models offer a cautionary signal. Microsoft's 53x EV/FCF multiple implies a 1.9% FCF yield, which is low for a company with such high growth expectations according to valuation analysis. Conversely, growth-oriented investors may justify the premium by citing Microsoft's AI-driven moats and expanding cloud margins, which support earnings-based valuations as noted in market analysis.

Long-Term Growth Prospects

Microsoft's long-term trajectory hinges on its ability to monetize AI and maintain cloud leadership. FY25 results demonstrated resilience, with Azure growth outpacing competitors and AI partnerships boosting revenue visibility. However, sustaining 20%+ earnings growth will require continued innovation and efficient capital allocation.

Analysts remain divided. While some models assume Microsoft can maintain 14.35% growth for FY2026, others warn of a slowdown as the company matures as analysts have cautioned. The key question is whether Microsoft's reinvestment needs will compress FCF margins, thereby validating the lower valuations of FCF-based models.

Conclusion

Microsoft's valuation puzzle underscores the subjectivity inherent in DCF analysis. Earnings-based models, which emphasize growth and market dominance, justify the current price, while FCF-based models, which stress cash flow sustainability, suggest overvaluation. Investors must weigh these perspectives against their own views on Microsoft's reinvestment efficiency, AI monetization, and discount rate assumptions. For those who believe in Microsoft's long-term moats, the stock may still offer compelling upside. For others, the margin of safety appears insufficient to justify the risk.