Microsoft compounds through enterprise software and cloud. Apple combines premium devices with services and ecosystem loyalty. Both use installed bases differently.
Microsoft and Apple are among the world’s largest technology companies, but their profit engines are distinct. Microsoft sells enterprise software, cloud infrastructure and subscriptions across many device types. Apple integrates devices, operating systems, silicon, retail and services.
Microsoft reported fiscal 2025 revenue of about $281.7 billion and net income of roughly $101.8 billion. Apple reported fiscal 2025 net sales of about $416.2 billion and net income near $112.0 billion, including services revenue of about $109.2 billion.
Apple’s revenue includes large hardware pass-through, while Microsoft’s software and cloud mix supports a different gross-margin profile. Revenue scale alone does not settle the comparison.
FY ended June 2025 / FY ended September 2025
About $281.7 billion / About $416.2 billion
About $101.8 billion / About $112.0 billion
Cloud and enterprise subscriptions / Devices plus services
| Measure | Microsoft | Apple | Reading note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reporting period | FY ended June 2025 | FY ended September 2025 | Different year-ends. |
| Revenue | About $281.7 billion | About $416.2 billion | Hardware raises Apple’s top line. |
| Net income | About $101.8 billion | About $112.0 billion | Profit scale is closer than revenue. |
| Core model | Cloud and enterprise subscriptions | Devices plus services | Different replacement and renewal cycles. |
Microsoft embeds itself in organisational workflows through Windows, Microsoft 365, Azure, security, developer tools and business applications. Recurring contracts and switching costs are central.
Apple controls the device experience from silicon to retail. Hardware generates the installed base, while services increase lifetime value through subscriptions, payments, cloud and app distribution.
The stronger company can change by battleground. Distribution may favour one side, while capital efficiency, regulation or technology transition favours the other. The analysis should therefore avoid declaring a universal winner from one quarter or one headline metric.
Microsoft’s installed base is largely organisational and contractual; Apple’s is consumer and device-led. A useful comparison examines recurring revenue, gross margin, capital expenditure, ecosystem retention and regulatory constraints rather than units sold alone.
A sensible investor or strategy team should separate operating quality from market price. An excellent business can be a poor purchase at an excessive valuation, while a weaker business can appear cheap because the market is correctly pricing structural risk. The comparison therefore stops at business analysis and does not create a buy or sell recommendation.
A comparison should be reproducible. Keep the original annual report or results release, the reporting date, the metric definition, the currency and any segment reconciliation used. For Microsoft and Apple, record whether the figure is consolidated, standalone, segmental, adjusted or reported under GAAP or another accounting framework.
When management uses an operating measure such as bookings, order value, active clients, subscribers or ARPU, retain its definition and avoid replacing it with a similar term from the other company. That evidence prevents a visually neat table from becoming an economically false comparison.