CRWD vs FTNT Stock Comparison
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. vs Fortinet, Inc.
FTNT leads
FTNT leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CRWD on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FTNT, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Fortinet, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTNT over CRWD, 62 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. FTNT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. FTNT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CRWD. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTNT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FTNT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Quality30%57 vs 95FTNT +38
- Risk Resilience15%46 vs 51FTNT +5
- Value30%24 vs 27Even
- Momentum25%69 vs 72Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FTNT. FTNT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FTNT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRWD and FTNT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTNT (Fortinet, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 75.8% against 51.6%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
FTNTFTNT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FTNTFTNT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FTNTFTNT on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
CRWDCRWD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FTNT, analyst targets favor CRWD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRWD | FTNT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.1% | -5.2% | CRWD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +157% | +92.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 32 | 23 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTNT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FTNT | 48 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | FTNT | revenue growth 6.1% vs 10.7%; EPS growth -26.7% vs 15.3%; gross margin 75% vs 80.4%; operating margin -3.9% vs 32.4% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 27 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 2.7% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day 63.9% vs 57.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FTNT | Risk Resilience 46 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CRWD | Target upside 1.1% vs -5.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRWD and FTNT 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 FTNT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1FTNT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FTNT +14
- 48 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- FTNT +16
- 47 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- FTNT +8
- 54 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- FTNT +14
- 47 vs 61
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (40.08%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (45.53%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
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 -5.71%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -6.07%, 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 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge.
- 2CRWD's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3FTNT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
FTNT leads on balance| Metric | CRWD | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.1% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -26.7% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 75% | 80.4% |
| Operating margin | -3.9% | 32.4% |
| Return on equity | -0.6% | 187.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.18 | 0.32 |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | CRWD | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.1 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 25.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.7% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 63.9% | 57.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 75.8% | 51.6% |
Risk
FTNT is the more resilient| Metric | CRWD | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.64 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.58 | 1.99 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.71 | 3.78 |
| Max drawdown | -37.2% | -14.3% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -1.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.4% | 41% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRWD or FTNT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FTNT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 62 against CRWD's 48. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 CRWD or FTNT the better buy right now?
FTNT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 FTNT over CRWD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FTNT leads Quality by 38 points; FTNT leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRWD or FTNT?
Analyst price targets imply +1.1% upside for CRWD and -5.2% for FTNT, so the Street currently favors CRWD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FTNT. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CRWD or FTNT?
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, CRWD or FTNT?
FTNT 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, CRWD or FTNT?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, CRWD or FTNT?
FTNT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FTNT on Risk Resilience, by 5 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CRWD more profitable than FTNT?
FTNT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 75% vs 80.4%; operating margin -3.9% vs 32.4%; roe -0.6% vs 187.9%.
Is FTNT's lead over CRWD getting stronger or weaker?
FTNT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CRWD vs FTNT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWD closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge; CRWD's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; FTNT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CRWD and FTNT?
CRWD: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FTNT: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on CRWD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FTNT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRWD and FTNT with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.