Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CRWD scored 44.9, VRNS scored 32.3 — CRWD leads.
Compare another set
CRWD
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
44.9
$275.04 · $281.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.6
CRWD leads
VRNS
Varonis Systems, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
32.3
$50.12 · $5.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestVRNS8.4x
Fastest growthCRWD+24.3%
Strongest balance sheetCRWD0.16
Highest qualityCRWD41 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/S multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CRWD
stronger →← stronger
VRNS
41
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
29
92
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
24
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
14
CRWD is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CRWD
VRNS
$1.6bC+
FCF
$122mC
+24.3%A-
Rev
+15.6%B+
0.16B+
D/E
1.19C
52.2xD
P/S
8.4xC+
6.79D
PEG
7.38D
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
VRNS
773% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
99% above
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~28%/yr
-91%
1-yr DCF upside
-57%
-89%
5-yr DCF upside
-50%
-83%
10-yr DCF upside
-36%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CRWD
No notable signals flagged.
VRNS
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
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.
VRNSVaronis Systems, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $50.12 · beta 0.77
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $5.8b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $63.90 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 22 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $51.32 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
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
Currently unprofitable (margin -20.5%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. ROE -32% 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. 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.
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 VRNS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 12.6 points in favor of CRWD. The widest single difference is Quality, where CRWD leads by 11.8 points.
QualityCRWD 40.8 · VRNS 29.0CRWD +11.8
ValueCRWD 24.2 · VRNS 13.8CRWD +10.4
GrowthCRWD 91.5 · VRNS 84.5CRWD +7.0
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 CRWD or VRNS the better stock?
CRWD scores higher: CRWD 44.9, VRNS 32.3 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 CRWD and VRNS differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CRWD leads by 12 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CRWD leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CRWD and VRNS 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.