Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NET scored 27.7, CRWD scored 44.9 — CRWD leads.
Compare another set
NET
Cloudflare, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
27.7
$360.93 · $128.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
17.2
CRWD leads
CRWD
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
44.9
$275.04 · $281.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestNET51.2x
Fastest growthNET+33.5%
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)
NET
stronger →← stronger
CRWD
26
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
41
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
92
8
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
24
CRWD is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NET
CRWD
$348mC
FCF
$1.6bC+
+33.5%A
Rev
+24.3%A-
2.18D
D/E
0.16B+
51.2xD
P/S
52.2xD
2.38C
PEG
6.79D
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
NET
CRWD
2321% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
773% above
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-97%
1-yr DCF upside
-91%
-96%
5-yr DCF upside
-89%
-94%
10-yr DCF upside
-83%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
NET
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
CRWD
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
NETCloudflare, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $360.93 · beta 1.65
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $128.5b. Trading near 52-week high of $370.35 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +34% — in hypergrowth territory. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $341.32 (implying -5% upside).
Moat
$128.5b 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. 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 2.18 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Currently unprofitable (margin -8.2%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
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.
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 NET and CRWD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.2 points in favor of CRWD. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueNET 8.5 · CRWD 24.2CRWD +15.7
QualityNET 26.3 · CRWD 40.8CRWD +14.5
GrowthNET 94.7 · CRWD 91.5NET +3.2
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 NET the better stock?
CRWD scores higher: CRWD 44.9, NET 27.7 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 NET differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CRWD leads by 16 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 CRWD and NET 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.