Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FTNT scored 62.3, OKTA scored 39.3 — FTNT leads.
Compare another set
FTNT
Fortinet, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
62.3
$194.75 · $142.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
23.0
FTNT leads
OKTA
Okta, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
39.3
$232.13 · $40.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestFTNT68.8x
Fastest growthFTNT+18.8%
Strongest balance sheetOKTA0.01
Highest qualityFTNT91 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E 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)
FTNT
stronger →← stronger
OKTA
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
51
90
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
78
29
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
15
FTNT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FTNT
OKTA
$3.2bB
FCF
$979mC+
+18.8%B+
Rev
+11.2%B
0.36B
D/E
0.01A
68.8xC
P/E
139.8xD
2.08C
PEG
1.57C+
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
FTNT
OKTA
124% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
86% above
~33%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~23%/yr
-63%
1-yr DCF upside
-51%
-55%
5-yr DCF upside
-46%
-41%
10-yr DCF upside
-38%
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
FTNT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
OKTA
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
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.
OKTAOkta, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $232.13 · beta 0.73
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $40.6b. Trading near 52-week high of $232.98 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 43 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $212.60 (implying -8% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($503m) — 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
Trailing P/E 139.8x 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 13.2x 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 FTNT and OKTA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 23.0 points in favor of FTNT. The widest single difference is Quality, where FTNT leads by 39.9 points.
QualityFTNT 91.4 · OKTA 51.5FTNT +39.9
ValueFTNT 29.4 · OKTA 15.1FTNT +14.3
GrowthFTNT 89.7 · OKTA 78.4FTNT +11.3
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 OKTA the better stock?
FTNT scores higher: FTNT 62.3, OKTA 39.3 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 FTNT and OKTA differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where FTNT leads by 40 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. FTNT leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are FTNT and OKTA 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.