COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CHKP vs QLYS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CHKP scored 76.9, QLYS scored 71.0 — CHKP leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. QLYS's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but CHKP's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
CHKP
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
76.9
$130.32 · $13.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.9
CHKP leads
QLYS
Qualys, Inc.
71
$182.21 · $6.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCHKP13.4x
- Fastest growthQLYS+10.4%
- Strongest balance sheetQLYS0.09
- Highest qualityQLYS95 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueCHKP-32%
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)
CHKP
stronger →← stronger
QLYS
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
68
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
83
75
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
45
QLYS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CHKP
QLYS
$1.2bC+
FCF
$314mC
+6.3%C+
Rev
+10.4%B
0.72C+
D/E
0.09B+
13.4xA
P/E
31.6xB
1.29B
PEG
3.64D
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
CHKP
QLYS
32% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
19% below
~-3%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
+36%
1-yr DCF upside
+15%
+46%
5-yr DCF upside
+23%
+61%
10-yr DCF upside
+36%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CHKP
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
QLYS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
CHKPCheck Point Software Technologies Ltd.
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $13.3b. Down 38% from 52-week high of $210.66 — deep drawdown territory. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $146.32 (implying +12% upside).
Moat
Net margin 39% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 37% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 111% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 38% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. 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.
QLYSQualys, Inc.
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $6.3b. 10% off the 52-week high of $201.54. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $171.74 (implying -6% 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 32x 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
CHKP leads QLYS by 5.9 points (76.9 to 71.0), its sharpest advantage coming in PEG (grade B). A contrarian could still prefer QLYS, which trades about 19% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — CHKP screens as value, QLYS screens as growth — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 CHKP and QLYS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.9 points in favor of CHKP. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueCHKP 75.3 · QLYS 45.3CHKP +30.0
- GrowthCHKP 68.1 · QLYS 82.9QLYS +14.8
- QualityCHKP 88.7 · QLYS 95.4QLYS +6.7
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.