Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CHKP scored 60.5, CRWD scored 44.9 — CHKP leads.
Compare another set
CHKP
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
60.5
$137.18 · $14.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.6
CHKP leads
CRWD
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
44.9
$275.04 · $281.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCRWD+24.3%
Strongest balance sheetCRWD0.16
Highest qualityCHKP88 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCHKP-18%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CHKP
stronger →← stronger
CRWD
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
41
48
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
92
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
24
CHKP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CHKP
CRWD
$1.1bC+
FCF
$1.6bC+
+6.3%C+
Rev
+24.3%A-
0.72C+
D/E
0.16B+
14.0xA-
P/E
—
—
PEG
6.79D
—
P/S
52.2xD
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
CHKP
CRWD
18% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
773% above
~0%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
+19%
1-yr DCF upside
-91%
+22%
5-yr DCF upside
-89%
+26%
10-yr DCF upside
-83%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CHKP
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
CRWD
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
CHKPCheck Point Software Technologies Ltd.
Software - Infrastructure · $137.18 · beta 0.47
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $14.0b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $210.66 — deep drawdown territory. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $145.83 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
Net margin 38% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 105% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
CRWDCrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $275.04 · beta 1.20
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $281.6b. 4% off the 52-week high of $286.99. Revenue growing +24%, comfortably above the S&P median. 50 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $238.97 (implying -13% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($1.2b) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash. $281.6b market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
P/S 52.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Net margin 1.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 1% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where CHKP and CRWD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.6 points in favor of CHKP. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityCHKP 88.2 · CRWD 40.8CHKP +47.4
GrowthCHKP 48.5 · CRWD 91.5CRWD +43.0
ValueCHKP 51.8 · CRWD 24.2CHKP +27.6
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is CHKP or CRWD the better stock?
CHKP scores higher: CHKP 60.5, CRWD 44.9 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do CHKP and CRWD differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CHKP leads by 47 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are CHKP and CRWD scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.