PANW vs ZS Stock Comparison
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
ZS leads
ZS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ZS.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZS over PANW, 49 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. ZS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while PANW holds the stronger quality profile. ZS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points.
Compare Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Zscaler, 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.
- Quality30%65 vs 48PANW +17
- Value30%24 vs 35ZS +11
- Momentum25%58 vs 66ZS +8
- Risk Resilience15%45 vs 49ZS +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ZS. ZS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; PANW keeps a meaningful quality edge.
The central trade-off
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
PANW (Palo Alto Networks, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
ZSZS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZSZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
ZSZS on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
ZSZS on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
ZSZS 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 | PANW | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.5% | +9.6% | ZS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +75.6% | +45.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 32 | 24 | 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 ZS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 48 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | PANWon balance | revenue growth 15.7% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -147.5% vs 57.1%; ROE 6.3% vs -3.7%; gross margin 71.9% vs 76.7%; operating margin 9.6% vs -4.7% — PANW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZS | Value 24 vs 35 |
| Technicals | PANW | Price vs 50-day -6.4% vs 9.5%; vs 200-day 65.9% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | ZS | Risk Resilience 45 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | ZS | Target upside 6.5% vs 9.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PANW and ZS 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 ZS.
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 Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS's edge.
- 2PANW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ZS 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
PANW leads on balance| Metric | PANW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.7% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -147.5% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 71.9% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | 9.6% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity | 6.3% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 0.79 |
Technicals
PANW has the stronger structure| Metric | PANW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.4 | 56.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.4% | 9.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 65.9% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 62.7% | 60.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PANW or ZS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 49 against PANW's 48. The edge comes from value and momentum. PANW 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 PANW or ZS the better buy right now?
ZS 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZS over PANW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PANW leads Quality by 17 points; ZS leads Value by 11 points; ZS leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PANW or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply +6.5% upside for PANW and +9.6% for ZS, so the Street currently favors ZS. 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, PANW or ZS?
ZS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, PANW or ZS?
ZS 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 ZS?
ZS on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, PANW or ZS?
ZS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 PANW more profitable than ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71.9% vs 76.7%; operating margin 9.6% vs -4.7%; roe 6.3% vs -3.7%. PANW leads on two measures and ZS 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.
What would change the PANW vs ZS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PANW closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS's edge; PANW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; ZS 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.
Compare PANW and ZS 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.