Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FTNT scored 62.3, QLYS scored 71.8 — QLYS leads.
Compare another set
FTNT
Fortinet, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
62.3
$194.75 · $142.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.5
QLYS leads
QLYS
Qualys, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
71.8
$202.42 · $7.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestQLYS35.1x
Fastest growthFTNT+18.8%
Strongest balance sheetQLYS0.09
Highest qualityQLYS95 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueQLYS-11%
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
QLYS
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
90
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
74
29
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
QLYS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FTNT
QLYS
$3.2bB
FCF
$314mC
+18.8%B+
Rev
+10.4%B
0.36B
D/E
0.09B+
68.8xC
P/E
35.1xB
2.08C
PEG
3.33D
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
QLYS
124% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
11% below
~33%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
-63%
1-yr DCF upside
+3%
-55%
5-yr DCF upside
+12%
-41%
10-yr DCF upside
+28%
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
QLYS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
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.
QLYSQualys, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $202.42 · beta 0.60
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $7.0b. Trading near 52-week high of $204.41 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $179.36 (implying -11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 29% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 37% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 152% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 35x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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
The model favors QLYS (73.5) over FTNT (63.4) primarily due to its superior Value pillar score of 50, significantly higher than FTNT's 30. A contrarian, however, could prefer FTNT for its robust growth, evidenced by its +18.8% revenue growth and Growth pillar score of 93, accepting its higher valuation.
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 QLYS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.5 points in favor of QLYS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueFTNT 29.4 · QLYS 52.9QLYS +23.5
GrowthFTNT 89.7 · QLYS 73.6FTNT +16.1
QualityFTNT 91.4 · QLYS 95.2QLYS +3.8
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 QLYS or FTNT the better stock?
QLYS scores higher: QLYS 71.8, FTNT 62.3 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 QLYS and FTNT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where QLYS leads by 24 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 QLYS and FTNT 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.