CRWD vs ZS Stock Comparison
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
ZS leads
ZS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from CRWD.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ZS, and the lead recently changed hands.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZS over CRWD, 49 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. ZS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while CRWD holds the stronger quality profile. ZS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ZS lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 1.
Compare CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. and Zscaler, 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.
- Value30%24 vs 35ZS +11
- Quality30%57 vs 48CRWD +9
- Momentum25%69 vs 66Even
- Risk Resilience15%46 vs 49Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ZS. ZS’s edge is concentrated in value; CRWD keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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.
ZS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRWD and ZS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 75.8% against 60.2%.
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
ZSZS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZSZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ZSZS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ZSZS 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 | CRWD | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.1% | +9.6% | ZS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +157% | +45.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 32 | 24 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 48 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 6.1% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -26.7% vs 57.1%; gross margin 75% vs 76.7%; operating margin -3.9% vs -4.7% |
| Valuation | ZS | Value 24 vs 35 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 2.7% vs 9.5%; vs 200-day 63.9% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | ZS | Target upside 1.1% vs 9.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRWD and ZS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 ZS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1ZS lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 1.
- Today
- ZS +1
- 48 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- ZS +2
- 47 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- CRWD +1
- 54 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- CRWD +4
- 47 vs 43
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when ZS moved ahead of CRWD.
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%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.49%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.65%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 -3.59%, 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 Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS'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.
- 3ZS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
Split| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.1% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -26.7% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 75% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | -3.9% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity | -0.6% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.18 | 0.79 |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.1 | 56.5 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.7% | 9.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 63.9% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 75.8% | 60.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.64 | 0.99 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.58 | -0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.71 | -0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -37.2% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -44% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.4% | 62.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRWD or ZS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 49 against CRWD's 48. The edge comes from value. CRWD is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 ZS the better buy right now?
ZS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZS over CRWD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ZS leads Value by 11 points; CRWD leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRWD or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply +1.1% upside for CRWD and +9.6% for ZS, so the Street currently favors ZS. 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, CRWD or ZS?
ZS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, CRWD or ZS?
ZS 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 ZS?
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 ZS?
ZS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75% vs 76.7%; operating margin -3.9% vs -4.7%; roe -0.6% vs -3.7%. Each name leads 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 ZS's lead over CRWD getting stronger or weaker?
ZS lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when ZS moved ahead of CRWD.
What would change the CRWD vs ZS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWD closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS'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; ZS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 ZS?
CRWD: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ZS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on CRWD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRWD and ZS 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.