Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CRWD scored 44.9, FTNT scored 62.3 — FTNT leads.
Compare another set
CRWD
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
44.9
$275.04 · $281.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
17.4
FTNT leads
FTNT
Fortinet, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
62.3
$194.75 · $142.9B
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 qualityFTNT91 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CRWD
stronger →← stronger
FTNT
41
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
92
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
24
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
29
FTNT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CRWD
FTNT
$1.6bC+
FCF
$3.2bB
+24.3%A-
Rev
+18.8%B+
0.16B+
D/E
0.36B
52.2xD
P/S
—
6.79D
PEG
2.08C
—
P/E
68.8xC
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
CRWD
FTNT
773% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
124% above
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~33%/yr
-91%
1-yr DCF upside
-63%
-89%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
-83%
10-yr DCF upside
-41%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CRWD
No notable signals flagged.
FTNT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
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.
FTNTFortinet, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $194.75 · beta 1.04
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $142.9b. Trading near 52-week high of $194.95 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +19%, comfortably above the S&P median. 36 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $164.32 (implying -16% upside).
Moat
Net margin 28% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. FCF converts 151% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($532m) that doesn't repeat every year. $142.9b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 68.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. P/S 19.0x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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 CRWD and FTNT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.4 points in favor of FTNT. The widest single difference is Quality, where FTNT leads by 50.6 points.
QualityCRWD 40.8 · FTNT 91.4FTNT +50.6
ValueCRWD 24.2 · FTNT 29.4FTNT +5.2
GrowthCRWD 91.5 · FTNT 89.7level
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 FTNT or CRWD the better stock?
FTNT scores higher: FTNT 62.3, 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 FTNT and CRWD differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where FTNT leads by 51 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. FTNT also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are FTNT 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.