PANW vs ZS Stock Comparison
ZS currently leads PANW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum, while PANW has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between PANW and ZS?
ZS leads the current stock comparison as Zscaler, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
ZS leads
ZS leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PANW. Wall Street currently favors PANW on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZS over PANW, 48 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while PANW holds the stronger quality profile. ZS 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 ZS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. ZS lead: Reversed — PANW led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 12.
Compare Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Zscaler, 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 ZS 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.
- Momentum16 vs 65ZS +49
- Quality60 vs 48PANW +12
- Value24 vs 34ZS +10
- Risk Resilience44 vs 48ZS +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZS. ZS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; PANW keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZS's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PANW and ZS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
PANW (Palo Alto Networks, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
ZSZS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZSZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
ZSZS on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
ZSZS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 ZS, analyst targets favor PANW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PANW | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4% | -9.4% | PANW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +85.6% | +73% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 37 | 30 | 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 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 | ZS | 36 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | PANWon balance | revenue growth 15.7% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -147.5% vs 57.1%; TTM ROE 1.7% vs -3.7%; gross margin 70.4% vs 76.7%; operating margin 6% vs -4.7% — PANW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZS | Value 24 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs 19.5%; vs 200-day 29.7% vs 29.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ZS | Risk Resilience 44 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | PANW | Target upside 4% vs -9.4% |
✓ 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ZS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZS lead: Reversed — PANW led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 12.
- Today
- ZS +12
- 36 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- ZS +13
- 40 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- PANW +3
- 54 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- PANW +1
- 55 vs 54
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when PANW moved ahead of ZS.
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 ZS
- 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.
ZS 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.84%, 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.
- 1PANW closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS's edge.
- 2PANW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ZS'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
PANW leads on balance| Metric | PANW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.7% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -147.5% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 70.4% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | 6% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.7% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.09 | 0.79 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PANW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14.1% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.2% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 50.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 94.5% | 53.6% |
| Year to date | 84.7% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 65.6% | -28.3% |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | PANW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.6 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | 19.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.7% | 29.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 61.1% |
Risk
ZS is the more resilient| Metric | PANW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.29 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.17 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.91 | -0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -36% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -19% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.1% | 66.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -6.1% |
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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 48 against PANW's 36. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 Oct 21, 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 ZS over PANW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZS leads Momentum by 49 points; PANW leads Quality by 12 points; ZS leads Value by 10 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 +4% upside for PANW and -9.4% for ZS, so the Street currently favors PANW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ZS. 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 ZS?
ZS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 49 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 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. 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 ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.4% vs 76.7%; operating margin 6% vs -4.7%; ttm roe 1.7% 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.
Is ZS's lead over PANW getting stronger or weaker?
ZS lead: Reversed — PANW led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZS now leads by 12. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-24, when PANW moved ahead of ZS.
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 Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZS's edge; PANW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ZS'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 ZS?
PANW: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZS: 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 ZS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PANW and ZS 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.