Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. QLYS scored 71.8, CHKP scored 60.5 — QLYS leads.
Compare another set
QLYS
Qualys, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
71.8
$202.42 · $7.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
11.3
QLYS leads
CHKP
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
60.5
$137.18 · $14.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCHKP14.0x
Fastest growthQLYS+10.4%
Strongest balance sheetQLYS0.09
Highest qualityQLYS95 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCHKP-18%
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)
QLYS
stronger →← stronger
CHKP
95
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
88
74
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
48
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
QLYS is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
QLYS
CHKP
$314mC
FCF
$1.1bC+
+10.4%B
Rev
+6.3%C+
0.09B+
D/E
0.72C+
35.1xB
P/E
14.0xA-
3.33D
PEG
—
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
QLYS
CHKP
11% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
18% below
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~0%/yr
+3%
1-yr DCF upside
+19%
+12%
5-yr DCF upside
+22%
+28%
10-yr DCF upside
+26%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
QLYS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
CHKP
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
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.
CHKPCheck Point Software Technologies Ltd.
Software - Infrastructure · $137.18 · beta 0.47
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $14.0b. Down 35% 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 $145.83 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
Net margin 38% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 105% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 35% 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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
CHKP leads QLYS by 4.9 points (75.8 to 70.9), 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 QLYS and CHKP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 11.3 points in favor of QLYS. The widest single difference is Growth, where QLYS leads by 25.1 points.
GrowthQLYS 73.6 · CHKP 48.5QLYS +25.1
QualityQLYS 95.2 · CHKP 88.2QLYS +7.0
ValueQLYS 52.9 · CHKP 51.8level
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 CHKP the better stock?
QLYS scores higher: QLYS 71.8, CHKP 60.5 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 CHKP differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where QLYS leads by 25 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. QLYS also leads quality, while value is effectively level between them.
How are QLYS and CHKP 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.