CRWD vs ZS Stock Comparison
ZS currently leads CRWD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum, while CRWD has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CRWD and ZS?
ZS leads the current stock comparison as Zscaler, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
ZS leads
ZS leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from CRWD.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ZS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZS over CRWD, 48 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while CRWD holds the stronger quality profile. ZS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ZS lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 12.
Compare CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. and Zscaler, 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 CRWD and ZS 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.
- Momentum15 vs 65ZS +50
- Quality59 vs 48CRWD +11
- Value24 vs 34ZS +10
- Risk Resilience47 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ZS. ZS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; CRWD keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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 momentum and value.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals.
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 most heavily.
Growth
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZSZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
ZSZS on the Momentum factor, by 50 points.
Lower downside
CRWDCRWD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | -9.9% | -9.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +149.2% | +73% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 33 | 30 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | ZS | 36 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | CRWDon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -81.1% vs 57.1%; TTM ROE 1.3% vs -3.7%; gross margin 75.2% vs 76.7%; operating margin -2.2% vs -4.7% — CRWD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZS | Value 24 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day 2.5% vs 19.5%; vs 200-day 40.6% vs 29.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 47 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside -9.9% vs -9.4% |
✓ 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 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)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ZS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZS lead: Reversed — CRWD led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 12.
- Today
- ZS +12
- 36 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- ZS +10
- 43 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- CRWD +3
- 54 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- ZS +1
- 53 vs 54
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when CRWD moved ahead of ZS.
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CRWD
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ZS
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ZS 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 +5.26%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.84%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS's edge.
- 2CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ZS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
CRWD leads on balance| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -81.1% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 75.2% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | -2.2% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.3% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.79 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -13% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.1% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.7% | 50.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 102.3% | 53.6% |
| Year to date | 94% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 88.6% | -28.3% |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.5 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.1 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.5% | 19.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 40.6% | 29.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 49.9% | 61.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.6 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.34 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.27 | -0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -37.2% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -18.5% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.7% | 66.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -6.1% |
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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 48 against CRWD's 36. The edge comes from momentum and 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 Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZS over CRWD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZS leads Momentum by 50 points; CRWD leads Quality by 11 points; ZS leads Value by 10 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 -9.9% upside for CRWD and -9.4% for 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 10 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?
ZS on the Momentum factor, by 50 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, CRWD or ZS?
CRWD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRWD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in 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 75.2% vs 76.7%; operating margin -2.2% vs -4.7%; ttm roe 1.3% vs -3.7%. CRWD leads on two measures and ZS 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 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 12. 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 2026-08-10, when CRWD moved ahead of ZS.
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 Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS's edge; CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ZS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 CRWD and ZS?
CRWD: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. ZS: 3 bullish / 1 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 CRWD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRWD and ZS 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.