Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PANW scored 49.3, QLYS scored 71.8 — QLYS leads.
Compare another set
PANW
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
49.3
$418.78 · $342.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
22.5
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
Fastest growthPANW+24.5%
Strongest balance sheetPANW0.09
Highest qualityQLYS95 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueQLYS-11%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
PANW
stronger →← stronger
QLYS
44
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
74
30
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
QLYS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PANW
QLYS
$4.1bB
FCF
$314mC
+24.5%A-
Rev
+10.4%B
0.09B+
D/E
0.09B+
29.8xD
P/S
—
2.03C
PEG
3.33D
—
P/E
35.1xB
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
PANW
QLYS
261% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
11% below
~48%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
-78%
1-yr DCF upside
+3%
-72%
5-yr DCF upside
+12%
-61%
10-yr DCF upside
+28%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
PANW
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
QLYS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $418.78 · beta 0.93
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $342.6b. 3% off the 52-week high of $432.33. Revenue growing +24%, comfortably above the S&P median. 50 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $396.92 (implying -5% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income. $342.6b 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 29.8x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Net margin 2.7% 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.
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
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 PANW and QLYS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 22.5 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.
QualityPANW 44.0 · QLYS 95.2QLYS +51.2
ValuePANW 29.8 · QLYS 52.9QLYS +23.1
GrowthPANW 91.3 · QLYS 73.6PANW +17.7
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 PANW the better stock?
QLYS scores higher: QLYS 71.8, PANW 49.3 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 PANW differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where QLYS leads by 51 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 PANW 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.