Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VRNS scored 32.3, PANW scored 49.3 — PANW leads.
Compare another set
VRNS
Varonis Systems, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
32.3
$50.12 · $5.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
17.0
PANW leads
PANW
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
49.3
$418.78 · $342.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestVRNS8.4x
Fastest growthPANW+24.5%
Strongest balance sheetPANW0.09
Highest qualityPANW44 / 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)
VRNS
stronger →← stronger
PANW
29
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
44
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
14
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
30
PANW is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VRNS
PANW
$122mC
FCF
$4.1bB
+15.6%B+
Rev
+24.5%A-
1.19C
D/E
0.09B+
8.4xC+
P/S
29.8xD
7.38D
PEG
2.03C
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
VRNS
PANW
99% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
261% above
~28%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~48%/yr
-57%
1-yr DCF upside
-78%
-50%
5-yr DCF upside
-72%
-36%
10-yr DCF upside
-61%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
VRNS
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
PANW
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
VRNSVaronis Systems, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $50.12 · beta 0.77
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $5.8b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $63.90 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 22 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $51.32 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
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
Currently unprofitable (margin -20.5%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. ROE -32% 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. 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.
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.
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 VRNS and PANW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.0 points in favor of PANW. The widest single difference is Value, where PANW leads by 16.0 points.
ValueVRNS 13.8 · PANW 29.8PANW +16.0
QualityVRNS 29.0 · PANW 44.0PANW +15.0
GrowthVRNS 84.5 · PANW 91.3PANW +6.8
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 PANW or VRNS the better stock?
PANW scores higher: PANW 49.3, VRNS 32.3 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 PANW and VRNS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where PANW leads by 16 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. PANW leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are PANW and VRNS 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.