PANW vs FTNT Stock Comparison
FTNT currently leads PANW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 36. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between PANW and FTNT?
FTNT leads the current stock comparison as Fortinet, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. vs Fortinet, Inc.
FTNT leads
FTNT leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PANW on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FTNT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Fortinet, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTNT over PANW, 57 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. FTNT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. FTNT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PANW. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTNT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FTNT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare PANW and FTNT 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.
- Quality60 vs 95FTNT +35
- Momentum16 vs 46FTNT +30
- Risk Resilience44 vs 57FTNT +13
- Value24 vs 27Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FTNT. FTNT’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 -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FTNT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PANW and FTNT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTNT (Fortinet, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
PANW (Palo Alto Networks, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 55.5% against 39.4%.
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
FTNTFTNT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FTNTFTNT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
FTNTFTNT on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
FTNTFTNT on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
PANWPANW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FTNT, analyst targets favor PANW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PANW | FTNT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4% | -13.9% | PANW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +85.6% | +93.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 37 | 25 | 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 FTNT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FTNT | 36 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | FTNTon balance | revenue growth 15.7% vs 10.7%; EPS growth -147.5% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE 1.7% vs 187.9%; gross margin 70.4% vs 80.4%; operating margin 6% vs 32.4% — FTNT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 27 |
| Technicals | FTNT | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 29.7% vs 37.1% |
| Risk Resilience | FTNT | Risk Resilience 44 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | PANW | Target upside 4% vs -13.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PANW and FTNT 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 21 points. (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)
- 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 FTNT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FTNT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FTNT +21
- 36 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- FTNT +23
- 40 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- FTNT +11
- 54 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- FTNT +6
- 55 vs 61
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
Only PANW
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FTNT
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
FTNT 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.05%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.83%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1PANW closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge.
- 2PANW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FTNT'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
FTNT leads on balance| Metric | PANW | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.7% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -147.5% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 70.4% | 80.4% |
| Operating margin | 6% | 32.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.7% | 187.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.09 | 0.32 |
Performance
FTNT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | PANW | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14.1% | -10.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.2% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 94.5% | 100.5% |
| Year to date | 84.7% | 115.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 65.6% | 105.6% |
Technicals
FTNT has the stronger structure| Metric | PANW | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.6 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 30.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.7% | 37.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 39.4% |
Risk
FTNT is the more resilient| Metric | PANW | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.29 | 0.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.17 | 1.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.91 | 3.22 |
| Max drawdown | -36% | -14.3% |
| Current drawdown | -19% | -12.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.1% | 43.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PANW or FTNT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FTNT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against PANW'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 PANW or FTNT the better buy right now?
FTNT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 FTNT over PANW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FTNT leads Quality by 35 points; FTNT leads Momentum by 30 points; FTNT leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PANW or FTNT?
Analyst price targets imply +4% upside for PANW and -13.9% for FTNT, so the Street currently favors PANW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FTNT. 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, PANW or FTNT?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, PANW or FTNT?
FTNT 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, PANW or FTNT?
FTNT on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, PANW or FTNT?
FTNT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FTNT on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 PANW more profitable than FTNT?
FTNT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 70.4% vs 80.4%; operating margin 6% vs 32.4%; ttm roe 1.7% vs 187.9%.
Is FTNT's lead over PANW getting stronger or weaker?
FTNT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the PANW vs FTNT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PANW closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge; PANW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; FTNT'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 PANW and FTNT?
PANW: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FTNT: 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 PANW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FTNT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PANW and FTNT 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.