CYBR vs VRNS Stock Comparison
Compare CYBR and VRNS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CYBR and VRNS?
CYBR leads the current stock comparison as CyberArk Software Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CyberArk Software Ltd. vs Varonis Systems, Inc.
CYBR leads
CYBR leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CYBR, and its lead is narrowing.
CyberArk Software Ltd.
Varonis Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CYBR over VRNS, 51 versus 47 as of Sep 6, 2026. CYBR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. CYBR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CYBR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. CYBR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CyberArk Software Ltd. and Varonis Systems, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare CYBR and VRNS 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.
- Risk Resilience15%82 vs 44CYBR +38
- Quality30%52 vs 43CYBR +9
- Value30%34 vs 32Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CYBR. CYBR’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CYBR's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CYBR and VRNS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CYBR (CyberArk Software Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
VRNS (Varonis Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 65.9% against 38.3%.
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
CYBRCYBR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CYBRCYBR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CYBRCYBR on Risk Resilience, by 38 points.
Analyst upside
CYBRCYBR 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 | CYBR | VRNS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15% | -2.8% | CYBR has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +55.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CYBR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CYBR | 51 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | CYBR | revenue growth 8.7% vs 4%; EPS growth 66% vs -28.1%; TTM ROE -6.2% vs -26.9%; gross margin 77.4% vs 77.1%; operating margin -9.3% vs -22% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 32 |
| Technicals | VRNS | Price vs 50-day -8.4% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day -5.9% vs 41.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CYBR | Risk Resilience 82 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | CYBR | Target upside 15% vs -2.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CYBR and VRNS 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 CYBR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CYBR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CYBR +4
- 51 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- CYBR +4
- 50 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- CYBR +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
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.
No active signals
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (34.46%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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 -0.9%, 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.
- 1VRNS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CYBR's edge.
- 2VRNS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CYBR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CYBR's advantage entirely.
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
CYBR leads on balance| Metric | CYBR | VRNS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.7% | 4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 66% | -28.1% |
| Gross margin | 77.4% | 77.1% |
| Operating margin | -9.3% | -22% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.2% | -26.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.51 | 1.16 |
Performance
VRNS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CYBR | VRNS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | 4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.5% | 5.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.9% | 41% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.3% | 89% |
| Year to date | -8.3% | 40.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.8% | -16.9% |
Technicals
VRNS has the stronger structure| Metric | CYBR | VRNS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36 | 59.3 |
| ADX (14) | 29 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.4% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.9% | 41.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.3% | 65.9% |
Risk
CYBR is the more resilient| Metric | CYBR | VRNS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.34 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | 0.12 |
| Max drawdown | -26.9% | -68.1% |
| Current drawdown | -21.7% | -27.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.9% | 71.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CYBR or VRNS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CYBR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 51 against VRNS's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 CYBR or VRNS the better buy right now?
CYBR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CYBR over VRNS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CYBR leads Risk Resilience by 38 points; CYBR leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CYBR or VRNS?
Analyst price targets imply +15% upside for CYBR and -2.8% for VRNS, so the Street currently favors CYBR. 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, CYBR or VRNS?
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, CYBR or VRNS?
CYBR 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, CYBR or VRNS?
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, CYBR or VRNS?
CYBR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CYBR on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 CYBR more profitable than VRNS?
CYBR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 77.4% vs 77.1%; operating margin -9.3% vs -22%; ttm roe -6.2% vs -26.9%.
Is CYBR's lead over VRNS getting stronger or weaker?
CYBR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CYBR vs VRNS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VRNS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CYBR's edge; VRNS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CYBR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CYBR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CYBR and VRNS?
CYBR: No active signals. VRNS: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. On VRNS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CYBR and VRNS 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.