FROG vs FSLY Stock Comparison
JFrog Ltd. vs Fastly, Inc.
FROG leads
FROG leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors FSLY on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FROG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JFrog Ltd.
Fastly, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FROG over FSLY, 43 versus 42 as of Sep 5, 2026. FROG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while FSLY holds the stronger value profile. FROG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FSLY. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FROG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. FROG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JFrog Ltd. and Fastly, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FROG and FSLY 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.
- Value30%24 vs 44FSLY +20
- Momentum25%39 vs 29FROG +10
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 42FROG +10
- Quality30%60 vs 52FROG +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FROG. FROG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; FSLY keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -16
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FROG's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FROG and FSLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FROG (JFrog Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
FSLY (Fastly, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 117% against 74.5%.
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
FROGFROG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FROGFROG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FSLYFSLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
FROGFROG on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
FROGFROG on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
FSLYFSLY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FROG, analyst targets favor FSLY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FROG | FSLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11% | +26.3% | FSLY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.7% | +53.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 6 | 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 FROG. 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 | 43 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | FROG | revenue growth 6.4% vs 6%; EPS growth 56.4% vs 23.1%; TTM ROE -4.9% vs -8.5%; gross margin 77.9% vs 61.5%; operating margin -11.2% vs -11.9% |
| Valuation | FSLY | Value 24 vs 44 |
| Technicals | FROG | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day 33.4% vs 10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | FROG | Risk Resilience 52 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | FSLY | Target upside 11% vs 26.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FROG and FSLY 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 FROG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FROG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FROG +1
- 43 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- FROG +7
- 52 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 53 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- FROG +7
- 52 vs 45
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 10 when FSLY moved ahead of FROG.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.72%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.68%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.05%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FROG 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.32%, AIQ -4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.51%, 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.
- 1FSLY closes the Momentum gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to FROG's edge.
- 2FSLY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FROG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
FROG leads on balance| Metric | FROG | FSLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.4% | 6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 56.4% | 23.1% |
| Gross margin | 77.9% | 61.5% |
| Operating margin | -11.2% | -11.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.9% | -8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0.4 |
Performance
FSLY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FROG | FSLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.3% | -10.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | -10.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.3% | 13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 115.8% | 2.2% |
| Year to date | 40.2% | 102.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 83.4% | 179.8% |
Technicals
FROG has the stronger structure| Metric | FROG | FSLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 26.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.8 | 16.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.4% | 10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74.5% | 117% |
Risk
FROG is the more resilient| Metric | FROG | FSLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 1.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.12 | 1.37 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.79 | 2.42 |
| Max drawdown | -49.6% | -51.6% |
| Current drawdown | -15.8% | -38.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 72.8% | 121.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -7.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FROG or FSLY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FROG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 43 against FSLY's 42. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. FSLY 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 FROG or FSLY the better buy right now?
FROG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 FROG over FSLY?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FSLY leads Value by 20 points; FROG leads Momentum by 10 points; FROG leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FROG or FSLY?
Analyst price targets imply +11% upside for FROG and +26.3% for FSLY, so the Street currently favors FSLY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FROG. 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, FROG or FSLY?
FSLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FSLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, FROG or FSLY?
FROG 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, FROG or FSLY?
FROG on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, FROG or FSLY?
FROG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FROG on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 FROG more profitable than FSLY?
FROG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 77.9% vs 61.5%; operating margin -11.2% vs -11.9%; ttm roe -4.9% vs -8.5%.
Is FROG's lead over FSLY getting stronger or weaker?
FROG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-10, when FSLY moved ahead of FROG.
What would change the FROG vs FSLY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FSLY closes the Momentum gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to FROG's edge; FSLY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; FROG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 FROG and FSLY?
FROG: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FSLY: 2 bullish / 2 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 FROG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FSLY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FROG and FSLY 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.