CSCO vs FTNT Stock Comparison
Cisco Systems, Inc. vs Fortinet, Inc.
FTNT leads
FTNT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from CSCO. Wall Street currently favors CSCO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FTNT, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Fortinet, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTNT over CSCO, 62 versus 53 as of Sep 2, 2026. FTNT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CSCO holds the stronger value profile. FTNT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CSCO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTNT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FTNT lead: Reversed — CSCO led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FTNT now leads by 9.
Compare Cisco Systems, 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.
- Momentum25%31 vs 72FTNT +41
- Value30%49 vs 27CSCO +22
- Quality30%74 vs 95FTNT +21
- Risk Resilience15%55 vs 51CSCO +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FTNT. FTNT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CSCO keeps a meaningful value 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.
FTNT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CSCO and FTNT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTNT (Fortinet, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CSCO (Cisco Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CSCOCSCO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
FTNTFTNT on the Momentum factor, by 41 points.
Lower downside
CSCOCSCO on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
CSCOCSCO 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 CSCO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CSCO | FTNT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20% | -5.3% | CSCO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.7% | +92.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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 | 53 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | FTNT | revenue growth 8.9% vs 10.7%; EPS growth 15.3% vs 15.3%; ROE 25.1% vs 187.9%; gross margin 64.3% vs 80.4%; operating margin 23.4% vs 32.4% |
| Valuation | CSCO | Value 49 vs 27 |
| Technicals | FTNT | Price vs 50-day -5.8% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day 17.4% vs 57.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CSCO | Risk Resilience 55 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CSCO | Target upside 20% vs -5.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CSCO and FTNT 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 moderate at 9 points.
- 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 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: Reversed — CSCO led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FTNT now leads by 9.
- Today
- FTNT +9
- 53 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- FTNT +10
- 53 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- CSCO +4
- 66 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- FTNT +5
- 56 vs 61
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when CSCO moved ahead of FTNT.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.38%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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%)
CSCO 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -6.05%, 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.
- 1CSCO closes the Momentum gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge.
- 2CSCO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 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 | CSCO | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.9% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15.3% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 64.3% | 80.4% |
| Operating margin | 23.4% | 32.4% |
| Return on equity | 25.1% | 187.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.32 |
Technicals
FTNT has the stronger structure| Metric | CSCO | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 25.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.8% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.4% | 57.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 51.6% |
Risk
CSCO is the more resilient| Metric | CSCO | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.43 | 1.99 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.85 | 3.78 |
| Max drawdown | -15.7% | -14.3% |
| Current drawdown | -15% | -1.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.9% | 41% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CSCO or FTNT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FTNT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 62 against CSCO's 53. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CSCO is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CSCO or FTNT the better buy right now?
FTNT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 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 FTNT over CSCO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FTNT leads Momentum by 41 points; CSCO leads Value by 22 points; FTNT leads Quality by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CSCO or FTNT?
Analyst price targets imply +20% upside for CSCO and -5.3% for FTNT, so the Street currently favors CSCO. 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, CSCO or FTNT?
CSCO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CSCO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, CSCO or FTNT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CSCO or FTNT?
FTNT on the Momentum factor, by 41 points. 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, CSCO or FTNT?
CSCO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSCO on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 CSCO more profitable than FTNT?
FTNT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 64.3% vs 80.4%; operating margin 23.4% vs 32.4%; roe 25.1% vs 187.9%.
Is FTNT's lead over CSCO getting stronger or weaker?
FTNT lead: Reversed — CSCO led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FTNT now leads by 9. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when CSCO moved ahead of FTNT.
What would change the CSCO vs FTNT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CSCO closes the Momentum gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge; CSCO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; 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 CSCO and FTNT?
CSCO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FTNT: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 CSCO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FTNT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CSCO 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.