Computer Hardware
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ZSPC vs IMMR vs MVIS vs MSFT vs QCOM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Application
Hardware, Equipment & Parts
Software - Infrastructure
Semiconductors
ZSPC vs IMMR vs MVIS vs MSFT vs QCOM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Computer Hardware | Software - Application | Hardware, Equipment & Parts | Software - Infrastructure | Semiconductors |
| Market Cap | $140K | $211M | $189M | $3.13T | $213.51B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $28M | $1.47B | $1M | $318.27B | $44.49B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-25M | $66M | $-95M | $125.22B | $9.92B |
| Gross Margin | 47.6% | 27.8% | -14.4% | 68.3% | 54.8% |
| Operating Margin | -79.5% | 9.1% | -57.4% | 46.8% | 25.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 15.5x | — | 25.3x | 18.8x |
| Total Debt | $18M | $322M | $37M | $112.18B | $16.37B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1M | $78M | $32M | $30.24B | $7.84B |
ZSPC vs IMMR vs MVIS vs MSFT vs QCOM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| zSpace, Inc. (ZSPC) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| Immersion Corporati… (IMMR) | 100 | 74.3 | -25.7% |
| MicroVision, Inc. (MVIS) | 100 | 47.0 | -53.0% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 99.9 | -0.1% |
| QUALCOMM Incorporat… (QCOM) | 100 | 131.9 | +31.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ZSPC vs IMMR vs MVIS vs MSFT vs QCOM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ZSPC lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
IMMR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 1.52, yield 6.0%
- Rev growth 35.4%, EPS growth 295.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 227.7%
- Beta 1.52, yield 6.0%, current ratio 1.72x
- 35.4% revenue growth vs MVIS's -74.3%
Among these 5 stocks, MVIS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MSFT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- 7.9% 10Y total return vs QCOM's 350.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.89, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- PEG 1.35 vs QCOM's 9.06
- 39.3% margin vs MVIS's -78.6%
QCOM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +42.9% vs ZSPC's -99.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 35.4% revenue growth vs MVIS's -74.3% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs MVIS's -78.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.89 vs MVIS's 2.61, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 6.0% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs QCOM's 1.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +42.9% vs ZSPC's -99.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.2% ROA vs ZSPC's -236.0% |
ZSPC vs IMMR vs MVIS vs MSFT vs QCOM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
ZSPC vs IMMR vs MVIS vs MSFT vs QCOM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories
IMMR leads 1 • QCOM leads 1 • ZSPC leads 0 • MVIS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT is the larger business by revenue, generating $318.3B annually — 263471.0x MVIS's $1M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MVIS's -78.6%. On growth, IMMR holds the edge at +5.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $28M | $1.5B | $1M | $318.3B | $44.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$22M | $166M | -$64M | $192.6B | $12.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$25M | $66M | -$95M | $125.2B | $9.9B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$18M | -$69M | -$59M | $72.9B | $12.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +47.6% | +27.8% | -14.4% | +68.3% | +54.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -79.5% | +9.1% | -57.4% | +46.8% | +25.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -91.1% | +4.5% | -78.6% | +39.3% | +22.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -64.6% | -4.7% | -49.2% | +22.9% | +28.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -43.2% | +5.4% | -86.5% | +18.3% | -3.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +78.4% | -137.3% | +14.3% | +23.4% | +173.0% |
Valuation Metrics
IMMR leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 1.6x trailing earnings, IMMR trades at a 96% valuation discount to QCOM's 40.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MSFT offers better value at 1.64x vs QCOM's 19.44x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $140,422 | $211M | $189M | $3.13T | $213.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $17M | $455M | $193M | $3.21T | $222.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.01x | 1.58x | -1.76x | 30.86x | 40.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 15.49x | — | 25.34x | 18.84x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 1.64x | 19.44x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 2.95x | — | 19.72x | 15.91x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.01x | 0.17x | 156.30x | 11.10x | 4.82x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.38x | 3.03x | 9.15x | 10.56x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 43.66x | 16.65x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
QCOM delivers a 40.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $40 in annual profit, vs $-137 for MVIS. MSFT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.33x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to QCOM's 0.77x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MSFT scores 6/9 vs IMMR's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +13.0% | -137.4% | +33.1% | +40.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.4% | +5.3% | -74.3% | +19.2% | +18.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +21.2% | -98.3% | +24.9% | +29.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | +25.8% | -93.6% | +29.7% | +28.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.57x | 0.66x | 0.33x | 0.77x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $17M | $244M | $4M | $81.9B | $8.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1M | $78M | $32M | $30.2B | $7.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $18M | $322M | $37M | $112.2B | $16.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -15.30x | 12.24x | -3.54x | 55.65x | 17.60x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
QCOM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MSFT five years ago would be worth $17,246 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3 for ZSPC. Over the past 12 months, QCOM leads with a +42.9% total return vs ZSPC's -99.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors QCOM at 25.2% vs ZSPC's -93.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -98.9% | +3.6% | -30.8% | -10.8% | +17.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -99.9% | -6.1% | -45.5% | -2.1% | +42.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | +3.4% | -73.6% | +39.5% | +96.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -6.1% | -95.6% | +72.5% | +58.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | +13.3% | -66.2% | +787.7% | +350.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -93.7% | +1.1% | -35.8% | +11.7% | +25.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MSFT and QCOM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MSFT is the less volatile stock with a 0.89 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MVIS's 2.61 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. QCOM currently trades 90.6% from its 52-week high vs ZSPC's 0.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.50x | 1.52x | 2.61x | 0.89x | 1.55x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $206.00 | $8.15 | $1.73 | $555.45 | $223.66 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.09 | $5.25 | $0.51 | $356.28 | $121.99 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +0.1% | +79.6% | +35.6% | +75.8% | +90.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 22.1 | 61.0 | 50.3 | 54.0 | 80.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.6M | 518K | 5.3M | 32.5M | 15.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — IMMR and QCOM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: IMMR as "Buy", MVIS as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy", QCOM as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 711.7% upside for MVIS (target: $5) vs -13.6% for QCOM (target: $175). For income investors, IMMR offers the higher dividend yield at 5.98% vs MSFT's 0.77%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $10.00 | $5.00 | $551.75 | $175.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 15 | 7 | 81 | 69 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +6.0% | — | +0.8% | +1.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 3 | 0 | 19 | 23 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.39 | — | $3.23 | $3.44 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.1% | 0.0% | +0.6% | +4.1% |
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). IMMR leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
ZSPC vs IMMR vs MVIS vs MSFT vs QCOM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is the stronger pick with 35.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -74. 3% for MicroVision, Inc. (MVIS). Immersion Corporation (IMMR) offers the better valuation at 1. 6x trailing P/E (15. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Immersion Corporation (IMMR) a "Buy" — based on 15 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM?
On trailing P/E, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is the cheapest at 1.
6x versus QUALCOMM Incorporated at 40. 4x. On forward P/E, Immersion Corporation is actually cheaper at 15. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Microsoft Corporation wins at 1. 35x versus QUALCOMM Incorporated's 9. 06x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM?
Over the past 5 years, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) delivered a total return of +72.
5%, compared to -100. 0% for zSpace, Inc. (ZSPC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MSFT returned +787. 7% versus ZSPC's -100. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
89β versus MicroVision, Inc. 's 2. 61β — meaning MVIS is approximately 194% more volatile than MSFT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 77% for QUALCOMM Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is pulling ahead at 35.
4% versus -74. 3% for MicroVision, Inc. (MVIS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Immersion Corporation grew EPS 295. 2% year-over-year, compared to -198. 1% for zSpace, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IMMR leads at 227. 7% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -78. 6% for MicroVision, Inc. — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus -57. 4% for MVIS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MSFT leads at 68. 8%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 35x versus QUALCOMM Incorporated's 9. 06x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) trades at 15. 5x forward P/E versus 25. 3x for Microsoft Corporation — 9. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MVIS: 711. 7% to $5. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM?
In this comparison, IMMR (6.
0% yield), QCOM (1. 7% yield), MSFT (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. ZSPC, MVIS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ZSPC or IMMR or MVIS or MSFT or QCOM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
89), 0. 8% yield, +787. 7% 10Y return). zSpace, Inc. (ZSPC) carries a higher beta of 2. 50 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +787. 7%, ZSPC: -100. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between ZSPC and IMMR and MVIS and MSFT and QCOM?
Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: ZSPC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IMMR is a small-cap high-growth stock; MVIS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MSFT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; QCOM is a large-cap quality compounder stock. IMMR, MSFT, QCOM pay a dividend while ZSPC, MVIS do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.