FSLY vs INTU Stock Comparison
Fastly, Inc. vs Intuit Inc.
INTU leads
INTU leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors FSLY on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support INTU.
Fastly, Inc.
Intuit Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INTU over FSLY, 61 versus 42 as of Sep 5, 2026. INTU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. INTU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FSLY. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTU today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. INTU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions. INTU leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Fastly, Inc. and Intuit Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FSLY and INTU 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.
- Quality30%52 vs 77INTU +25
- Value30%44 vs 67INTU +23
- Momentum25%29 vs 40INTU +11
- Risk Resilience15%42 vs 49INTU +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor INTU. INTU’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
INTU's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FSLY and INTU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INTU (Intuit Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
FSLY (Fastly, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 117% against 47.6%.
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
INTUINTU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FSLYFSLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
INTUINTU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
INTUINTU on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
INTUINTU on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 INTU, analyst targets favor FSLY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FSLY | INTU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.3% | +20% | FSLY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +53.8% | +96% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 20 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INTU | 42 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | INTUon balance | revenue growth 6% vs -49.1%; EPS growth 23.1% vs -87.9%; TTM ROE -8.5% vs 23.4%; gross margin 61.5% vs 81.3%; operating margin -11.9% vs 27.4% — INTU takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | INTU | Value 44 vs 67 |
| Technicals | FSLY | Price vs 50-day -7.2% vs 5.4%; vs 200-day 10.4% vs -22.1% |
| Risk Resilience | INTU | Risk Resilience 42 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | FSLY | Target upside 26.3% vs 20% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FSLY and INTU and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 19 points. (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 INTU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4INTU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INTU +19
- 42 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- INTU +21
- 45 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- INTU +20
- 53 vs 73
- 90 sessions ago
- INTU +17
- 45 vs 62
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.
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
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (35.35%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.67%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FSLY 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 -2.51%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.37%, 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 Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTU's edge.
- 2FSLY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3INTU 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
INTU leads on balance| Metric | FSLY | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6% | -49.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.1% | -87.9% |
| Gross margin | 61.5% | 81.3% |
| Operating margin | -11.9% | 27.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.5% | 23.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.4 | 0.44 |
Performance
FSLY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FSLY | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.6% | -7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.3% | 2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.9% | 12.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.2% | -30.9% |
| Year to date | 102.3% | -49.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 179.8% | -50.2% |
Technicals
FSLY has the stronger structure| Metric | FSLY | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.1 | 48.6 |
| ADX (14) | 16.9 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.2% | 5.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.4% | -22.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 117% | 47.6% |
Risk
INTU is the more resilient| Metric | FSLY | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.22 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.37 | -1.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.42 | -1.6 |
| Max drawdown | -51.6% | -63.7% |
| Current drawdown | -38.5% | -52.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 121.7% | 48.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.1% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FSLY or INTU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INTU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against FSLY's 42. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 FSLY or INTU the better buy right now?
INTU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor INTU over FSLY?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. INTU leads Quality by 25 points; INTU leads Value by 23 points; INTU leads Momentum by 11 points. INTU leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by FSLY simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, FSLY or INTU?
Analyst price targets imply +26.3% upside for FSLY and +20% for INTU, so the Street currently favors FSLY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors INTU. 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, FSLY or INTU?
INTU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. INTU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, FSLY or INTU?
FSLY 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, FSLY or INTU?
INTU on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, FSLY or INTU?
INTU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. INTU on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 FSLY more profitable than INTU?
INTU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 61.5% vs 81.3%; operating margin -11.9% vs 27.4%; ttm roe -8.5% vs 23.4%.
Is INTU's lead over FSLY getting stronger or weaker?
INTU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FSLY vs INTU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FSLY closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTU's edge; FSLY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; INTU 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 FSLY and INTU?
FSLY: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. INTU: 0 bullish / 2 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 FSLY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INTU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FSLY and INTU 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.