META vs CRWD Stock Comparison
META currently leads CRWD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 36. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between META and CRWD?
META leads the current stock comparison as Meta Platforms, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Meta Platforms, Inc. vs CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
META leads
META leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support META, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors META over CRWD, 52 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. META's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. META also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor META today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. META lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 16 points over 30 sessions. META 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 Meta Platforms, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare META and CRWD 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.
- Quality83 vs 59META +24
- Momentum37 vs 15META +22
- Risk Resilience58 vs 47META +11
- Value32 vs 24META +8
5 of 6 evidence groups favor META. META’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.54%)
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
META's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — META and CRWD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
META (Meta Platforms, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 49.9% against 40.4%.
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
METAMETA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
METAMETA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
METAMETA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
METAMETA on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
METAMETA on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
METAMETA 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 | META | CRWD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.5% | -9.9% | META has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.7% | +149.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 21 | 33 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor META. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | META | 52 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | META | revenue growth 8% vs 6.2%; EPS growth -41.1% vs -81.1%; TTM ROE 29.7% vs 1.3%; gross margin 81.7% vs 75.2%; operating margin 38.1% vs -2.2% |
| Valuation | META | Value 32 vs 24 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 5.8% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 9.8% vs 40.6% |
| Risk Resilience | META | Risk Resilience 58 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | META | Target upside 14.5% vs -9.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of META and CRWD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 META.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20META lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- META +16
- 52 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- META +11
- 54 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- META +11
- 65 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 53 vs 53
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when META moved ahead of CRWD.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only META
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CRWD
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bearish Crossover.
META 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 +0.47%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +5.26%, 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.
- 1CRWD closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to META's edge.
- 2CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3META's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
META leads on balance| Metric | META | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -41.1% | -81.1% |
| Gross margin | 81.7% | 75.2% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | -2.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 29.7% | 1.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 0.16 |
Performance
CRWD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | META | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9% | -13% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.7% | 20.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.8% | 102.3% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | 94% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.5% | 88.6% |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | META | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.8 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.8% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.8% | 40.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 49.9% |
Risk
META is the more resilient| Metric | META | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 1.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.06 | 2.27 |
| Max drawdown | -30.1% | -37.2% |
| Current drawdown | -10.7% | -18.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.1% | 55.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, META or CRWD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, META is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against CRWD's 36. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 META or CRWD the better buy right now?
META carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor META over CRWD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. META leads Quality by 24 points; META leads Momentum by 22 points; META leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. META leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CRWD 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, META or CRWD?
Analyst price targets imply +14.5% upside for META and -9.9% for CRWD, so the Street currently favors META. 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, META or CRWD?
META is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. META on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, META or CRWD?
META 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, META or CRWD?
META on the Momentum factor, by 22 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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, META or CRWD?
META is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. META on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is META more profitable than CRWD?
META leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 81.7% vs 75.2%; operating margin 38.1% vs -2.2%; ttm roe 29.7% vs 1.3%.
Is META's lead over CRWD getting stronger or weaker?
META lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when META moved ahead of CRWD.
What would change the META vs CRWD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWD closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to META's edge; CRWD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; META's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about META and CRWD?
META: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRWD: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 META is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRWD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare META and CRWD with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.