NOW vs CRWD Stock Comparison
ServiceNow, Inc. vs CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
NOW leads
NOW leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NOW, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ServiceNow, Inc.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOW over CRWD, 59 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. NOW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while CRWD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. NOW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. NOW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ServiceNow, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%42 vs 24NOW +18
- Momentum25%84 vs 69NOW +15
- Quality30%64 vs 57NOW +7
- Risk Resilience15%41 vs 46CRWD +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NOW. NOW’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; CRWD keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
NOW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NOW and CRWD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NOW (ServiceNow, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 75.8% against 56.2%.
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
NOWNOW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CRWDCRWD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NOWNOW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
NOWNOW on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
CRWDCRWD on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
NOWNOW 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 | NOW | CRWD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.1% | +1.1% | NOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +115.9% | +157% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 32 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NOW | 59 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 5.8% vs 6.1%; EPS growth -35.6% vs -26.7%; gross margin 74.8% vs 75%; operating margin 11.4% vs -3.9% |
| Valuation | NOW | Value 42 vs 24 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 21.7% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 20.9% vs 63.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CRWD | Risk Resilience 41 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | NOW | Target upside 2.1% vs 1.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NOW and CRWD 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 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 NOW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1NOW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NOW +11
- 59 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- NOW +10
- 57 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- NOW +5
- 59 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CRWD +4
- 43 vs 47
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 20 when NOW 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.32%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (40.08%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
NOW 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 -3.65%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.71%, 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 Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOW's edge.
- 2CRWD's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3NOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | NOW | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 6.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -35.6% | -26.7% |
| Gross margin | 74.8% | 75% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | -3.9% |
| Return on equity | 13.8% | -0.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.18 |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | NOW | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.4 | 54.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.6 | 25.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 21.7% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20.9% | 63.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 56.2% | 75.8% |
Risk
CRWD is the more resilient| Metric | NOW | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.2 | 1.58 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.27 | 2.71 |
| Max drawdown | -56.8% | -37.2% |
| Current drawdown | -23% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 53.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NOW or CRWD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NOW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 59 against CRWD's 48. The edge comes from value and momentum. CRWD is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 NOW or CRWD the better buy right now?
NOW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NOW over CRWD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. NOW leads Value by 18 points; NOW leads Momentum by 15 points; NOW leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NOW or CRWD?
Analyst price targets imply +2.1% upside for NOW and +1.1% for CRWD, so the Street currently favors NOW. 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, NOW or CRWD?
NOW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NOW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, NOW or CRWD?
CRWD 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, NOW or CRWD?
NOW on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, NOW or CRWD?
CRWD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRWD on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 NOW more profitable than CRWD?
NOW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74.8% vs 75%; operating margin 11.4% vs -3.9%; roe 13.8% vs -0.6%.
Is NOW's lead over CRWD getting stronger or weaker?
NOW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-20, when NOW moved ahead of CRWD.
What would change the NOW vs CRWD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWD closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOW's edge; CRWD's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; NOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 NOW and CRWD?
NOW: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRWD: 5 bullish / 0 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 NOW is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CRWD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NOW and CRWD 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.