S vs TENB Stock Comparison
Compare S and TENB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between S and TENB?
S leads the current stock comparison as SentinelOne, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
SentinelOne, Inc. vs Tenable Holdings, Inc.
S leads
S leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support S, and its current signal state is conflicted.
SentinelOne, Inc.
Tenable Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors S over TENB, 48 versus 46 as of Sep 6, 2026. S's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while TENB holds the stronger value profile. S also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor S today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. S lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare SentinelOne, Inc. and Tenable Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare S and TENB 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.
- Value30%34 vs 65TENB +31
- Quality30%60 vs 32S +28
- Momentum25%53 vs 45S +8
- Risk Resilience15%47 vs 40S +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor S. S’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; TENB keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
S's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — S and TENB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
S (SentinelOne, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
TENB (Tenable Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
SS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TENBTENB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TENBTENB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
SS on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
SS on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
SS 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 | S | TENB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.4% | -8.4% | S has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.5% | +92.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor S. 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 46 |
| Fundamentals | TENBon balance | revenue growth 5.5% vs 2.5%; EPS growth -17.4% vs 209.8%; TTM ROE -23.2% vs 2.4%; gross margin 73.3% vs 78.1%; operating margin -27% vs 4.8% — TENB takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TENB | Value 34 vs 65 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day 24.1% vs 31.4% |
| Risk Resilience | S | Risk Resilience 47 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | S | Target upside 6.4% vs -8.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of S and TENB 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 S.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5S lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- S +2
- 48 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- TENB +1
- 50 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when S moved ahead of TENB.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.72%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (38.73%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.49%)
S 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 +0.4%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.7%, 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.
- 1TENB closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to S's edge.
- 2TENB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3S's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
TENB leads on balance| Metric | S | TENB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -17.4% | 209.8% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 78.1% |
| Operating margin | -27% | 4.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -23.2% | 2.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 2.12 |
Performance
TENB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | S | TENB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.7% | -9.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.1% | -5.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24.6% | 23% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 40.1% | 62.8% |
| Year to date | 32.5% | 45.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.3% | 11.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | S | TENB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.4 | 46.5 |
| ADX (14) | 19.4 | 13.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.1% | 31.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 69.1% | 74.1% |
Risk
S is the more resilient| Metric | S | TENB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.26 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.36 | 0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.5 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -37.8% | -48.5% |
| Current drawdown | -16.6% | -19.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.6% | 54.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, S or TENB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, S is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 48 against TENB's 46. The edge comes from quality and momentum. TENB is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 S or TENB the better buy right now?
S carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor S over TENB?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TENB leads Value by 31 points; S leads Quality by 28 points; S leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, S or TENB?
Analyst price targets imply +6.4% upside for S and -8.4% for TENB, so the Street currently favors S. 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, S or TENB?
TENB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TENB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, S or TENB?
TENB 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, S or TENB?
S 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, S or TENB?
S is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. S on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 S more profitable than TENB?
TENB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 73.3% vs 78.1%; operating margin -27% vs 4.8%; ttm roe -23.2% vs 2.4%.
Is S's lead over TENB getting stronger or weaker?
S lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when S moved ahead of TENB.
What would change the S vs TENB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TENB closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to S's edge; TENB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; s's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 S and TENB?
S: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TENB: 1 bullish / 1 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 S is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TENB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare S and TENB 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.