GEN vs QLYS Stock Comparison
Compare GEN and QLYS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GEN and QLYS?
GEN leads the current stock comparison as Gen Digital Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gen Digital Inc. vs Qualys, Inc.
GEN leads
GEN leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QLYS.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GEN, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Gen Digital Inc.
Qualys, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEN over QLYS, 68 versus 62 as of Sep 6, 2026. GEN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QLYS holds the stronger quality profile. GEN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. GEN lead: Reversed — QLYS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GEN now leads by 6.
Compare Gen Digital Inc. and Qualys, 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 GEN and QLYS 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.
- Momentum25%79 vs 43GEN +36
- Quality30%70 vs 96QLYS +26
- Value30%71 vs 52GEN +19
- Risk Resilience15%43 vs 43Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GEN. GEN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QLYS keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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.
GEN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEN and QLYS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEN (Gen Digital Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QLYS (Qualys, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 45.9% against 34.6%.
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
GENGEN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
QLYSQLYS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GENGEN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
GENGEN on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
GENGEN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GENGEN 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 | GEN | QLYS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -8.6% | -11.4% | GEN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10.7% | +88.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 10 | 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 GEN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GEN | 68 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | GENon balance | revenue growth 4.1% vs 3.1%; EPS growth -57.6% vs 5.6%; TTM ROE 41.9% vs 37.2%; gross margin 78% vs 83.5%; operating margin 42.1% vs 34.6% — GEN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEN | Value 71 vs 52 |
| Technicals | QLYS | Price vs 50-day 10.5% vs 5%; vs 200-day 24.6% vs 37.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 43 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | GEN | Target upside -8.6% vs -11.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEN and QLYS 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 6 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 GEN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5GEN lead: Reversed — QLYS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GEN now leads by 6.
- Today
- GEN +6
- 68 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- GEN +3
- 67 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- QLYS +5
- 67 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- QLYS +5
- 68 vs 73
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when GEN moved ahead of QLYS.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
GEN 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 -2.17%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.55%, 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.
- 1QLYS closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEN's edge.
- 2QLYS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3GEN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
GEN leads on balance| Metric | GEN | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.1% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -57.6% | 5.6% |
| Gross margin | 78% | 83.5% |
| Operating margin | 42.1% | 34.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.9% | 37.2% |
| Debt to equity | 3.08 | 0.09 |
Performance
QLYS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GEN | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -8.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.1% | -6.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.6% | 56.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35.6% | 74% |
| Year to date | 12.7% | 29.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.3% | 26.3% |
Technicals
QLYS has the stronger structure| Metric | GEN | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.8 | 39.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17.7 | 29.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.5% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.6% | 37.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.6% | 45.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GEN | QLYS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.84 | 0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.17 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.28 | 0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -40.2% | -50.5% |
| Current drawdown | -2.2% | -12.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.2% | 52.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEN or QLYS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 68 against QLYS's 62. The edge comes from momentum and value. QLYS 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 GEN or QLYS the better buy right now?
GEN 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GEN over QLYS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. GEN leads Momentum by 36 points; QLYS leads Quality by 26 points; GEN leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEN or QLYS?
Analyst price targets imply -8.6% upside for GEN and -11.4% for QLYS, so the Street currently favors GEN. 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, GEN or QLYS?
GEN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, GEN or QLYS?
QLYS 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, GEN or QLYS?
GEN on the Momentum factor, by 36 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, GEN or QLYS?
GEN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is GEN more profitable than QLYS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 78% vs 83.5%; operating margin 42.1% vs 34.6%; ttm roe 41.9% vs 37.2%. GEN leads on two measures and QLYS 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 GEN's lead over QLYS getting stronger or weaker?
GEN lead: Reversed — QLYS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GEN now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when GEN moved ahead of QLYS.
What would change the GEN vs QLYS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QLYS closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEN's edge; QLYS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; GEN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 GEN and QLYS?
GEN: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. QLYS: 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 GEN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QLYS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GEN and QLYS 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.