CRM vs PANW Stock Comparison
CRM currently leads PANW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between CRM and PANW?
CRM leads the current stock comparison as Salesforce, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Salesforce, Inc. vs Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
CRM leads
CRM leads by 28 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support CRM, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Salesforce, Inc.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRM over PANW, 64 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. CRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. CRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. CRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 28 points over 30 sessions. CRM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Salesforce, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CRM and PANW 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.
- Momentum75 vs 16CRM +59
- Value64 vs 24CRM +40
- Risk Resilience49 vs 44CRM +5
- Quality64 vs 60CRM +4
6 of 6 evidence groups favor CRM. CRM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CRM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRM and PANW both carry a full feed there.
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
CRMCRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CRMCRM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRMCRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points.
Momentum
CRMCRM on the Momentum factor, by 59 points.
Lower downside
CRMCRM on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
CRMCRM 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 | CRM | PANW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +4% | CRM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.6% | +85.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 37 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRM | 64 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | CRMon balance | revenue growth 1.9% vs 15.7%; EPS growth 77% vs -147.5%; TTM ROE 20.2% vs 1.7%; gross margin 77.3% vs 70.4%; operating margin 21.4% vs 6% — CRM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRM | Value 64 vs 24 |
| Technicals | CRM | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -6.7%; vs 200-day 21.9% vs 29.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CRM | Risk Resilience 49 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | CRM | Target upside 8.6% vs 4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRM and PANW and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 28 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 6 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 CRM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRM +28
- 64 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- CRM +24
- 64 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 54 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CRM +4
- 59 vs 55
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when CRM moved ahead of PANW.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CRM
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PANW
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
PANW is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.27%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.05%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1PANW closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge.
- 2PANW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CRM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CRM leads on balance| Metric | CRM | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.9% | 15.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 77% | -147.5% |
| Gross margin | 77.3% | 70.4% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% | 6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.2% | 1.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.09 | 0.09 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CRM | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.9% | -14.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.9% | -9.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 48.7% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.6% | 94.5% |
| Year to date | -8.5% | 84.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.5% | 65.6% |
Technicals
CRM has the stronger structure| Metric | CRM | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.1 | 31.6 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21.9% | 29.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 55.5% |
Risk
CRM is the more resilient| Metric | CRM | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 1.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | 1.17 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.26 | 1.91 |
| Max drawdown | -43.6% | -36% |
| Current drawdown | -8.9% | -19% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.6% | 49.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRM or PANW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against PANW's 36. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 CRM or PANW the better buy right now?
CRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 6 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRM over PANW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRM leads Momentum by 59 points; CRM leads Value by 40 points; CRM leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. CRM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by PANW simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CRM or PANW?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for CRM and +4% for PANW, so the Street currently favors CRM. 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, CRM or PANW?
CRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points. 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, CRM or PANW?
CRM 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, CRM or PANW?
CRM on the Momentum factor, by 59 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, CRM or PANW?
CRM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRM on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 CRM more profitable than PANW?
CRM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 77.3% vs 70.4%; operating margin 21.4% vs 6%; ttm roe 20.2% vs 1.7%.
Is CRM's lead over PANW getting stronger or weaker?
CRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 28 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-07, when CRM moved ahead of PANW.
What would change the CRM vs PANW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PANW closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge; PANW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CRM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CRM and PANW?
CRM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. PANW: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 CRM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PANW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRM and PANW 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.