ANET vs CRWD Stock Comparison
ANET currently leads CRWD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 36. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between ANET and CRWD?
ANET leads the current stock comparison as Arista Networks, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arista Networks, Inc. vs CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
ANET leads
ANET leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ANET, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Arista Networks, Inc.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ANET over CRWD, 48 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. ANET's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. ANET also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ANET today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ANET lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Arista Networks, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ANET and CRWD against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality89 vs 59ANET +30
- Momentum22 vs 15ANET +7
- Risk Resilience53 vs 47ANET +6
- Value26 vs 24Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ANET. ANET’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
ANET's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ANET and CRWD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ANET (Arista Networks, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 49.9% against 40.5%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
ANETANET on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ANETANET on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ANETANET on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
ANETANET on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
ANETANET on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ANET | CRWD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.3% | -9.9% | ANET has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.8% | +149.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 33 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ANET. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ANET | 48 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | ANETon balance | revenue growth 12.1% vs 6.2%; EPS growth 18.5% vs -81.1%; TTM ROE 30.8% vs 1.3%; gross margin 63% vs 75.2%; operating margin 43.1% vs -2.2% — ANET takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 26 vs 24 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day -7% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 11.1% vs 40.6% |
| Risk Resilience | ANET | Risk Resilience 53 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | ANET | Target upside 17.3% vs -9.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ANET and CRWD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on ANET.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ANET lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ANET +12
- 48 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- ANET +6
- 49 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- ANET +7
- 61 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- ANET +9
- 62 vs 53
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CRWD
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ANET leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.73%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +5.26%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CRWD closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge.
- 2CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ANET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
ANET leads on balance| Metric | ANET | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.1% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.5% | -81.1% |
| Gross margin | 63% | 75.2% |
| Operating margin | 43.1% | -2.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.8% | 1.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.16 |
Performance
CRWD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ANET | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.4% | -13% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.7% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.6% | 20.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.8% | 102.3% |
| Year to date | 38.3% | 94% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.4% | 88.6% |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | ANET | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.3 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.6 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.1% | 40.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.5% | 49.9% |
Risk
ANET is the more resilient| Metric | ANET | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.18 | 1.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.64 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.98 | 2.27 |
| Max drawdown | -28.3% | -37.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16.4% | -18.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.7% | 55.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ANET or CRWD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ANET is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 48 against CRWD's 36. The edge comes from quality and momentum. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is ANET or CRWD the better buy right now?
ANET carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ANET over CRWD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ANET leads Quality by 30 points; ANET leads Momentum by 7 points; ANET leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ANET or CRWD?
Analyst price targets imply +17.3% upside for ANET and -9.9% for CRWD, so the Street currently favors ANET. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ANET or CRWD?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, ANET or CRWD?
ANET on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, ANET or CRWD?
ANET on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, ANET or CRWD?
ANET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANET on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ANET more profitable than CRWD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63% vs 75.2%; operating margin 43.1% vs -2.2%; ttm roe 30.8% vs 1.3%. ANET leads on two measures and CRWD on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is ANET's lead over CRWD getting stronger or weaker?
ANET lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ANET vs CRWD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWD closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge; CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ANET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ANET and CRWD?
ANET: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRWD: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on ANET is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRWD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ANET and CRWD with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.