Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CHKP scored 60.5, TENB scored 56.5 — 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
4.0
CHKP leads
TENB
Tenable Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
56.5
$41.59 · $4.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthTENB+9.9%
Strongest balance sheetCHKP0.72
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
TENB
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
63
48
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
72
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
40
CHKP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CHKP
TENB
$1.1bC+
FCF
$264mC
+6.3%C+
Rev
+9.9%B
0.72C+
D/E
2.12D
14.0xA-
P/E
—
—
PEG
1.33B
—
P/S
4.4xB
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
TENB
18% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
2% above
~0%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+19%
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
+22%
5-yr DCF upside
-2%
+26%
10-yr DCF upside
+10%
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
TENB
Why this score
Buying back stock
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.
TENBTenable Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $41.59 · beta 1.01
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $4.6b. 5% off the 52-week high of $43.67. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $35.35 (implying -15% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($180m) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash. 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
D/E 2.12 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Net margin 0.6% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 3% 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 TENB diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.0 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 · TENB 63.1CHKP +25.1
GrowthCHKP 48.5 · TENB 71.7TENB +23.2
ValueCHKP 51.8 · TENB 39.7CHKP +12.1
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 TENB the better stock?
CHKP scores higher: CHKP 60.5, TENB 56.5 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 TENB differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CHKP leads by 25 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 TENB 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.