SMCI vs PANW Stock Comparison
Super Micro Computer, Inc. vs Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
SMCI leads
SMCI leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SMCI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Super Micro Computer, Inc.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SMCI over PANW, 60 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. SMCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while PANW holds the stronger quality profile. SMCI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SMCI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SMCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Super Micro Computer, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, 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%72 vs 24SMCI +48
- Momentum25%73 vs 58SMCI +15
- Quality30%51 vs 65PANW +14
- Risk Resilience15%35 vs 45PANW +10
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SMCI. SMCI’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; PANW keeps a meaningful quality 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.
SMCI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SMCI and PANW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SMCI (Super Micro Computer, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
PANW (Palo Alto Networks, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
SMCISMCI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
SMCISMCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SMCISMCI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 48 points.
Momentum
SMCISMCI on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
PANWPANW on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
SMCISMCI 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 | SMCI | PANW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.8% | +6.5% | SMCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +44.3% | +75.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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 SMCI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SMCI | 60 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | PANWon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 15.7%; EPS growth 133.3% vs -147.5%; ROE 24.9% vs 6.3%; gross margin 10.8% vs 71.9%; operating margin 7.1% vs 9.6% — PANW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SMCI | Value 72 vs 24 |
| Technicals | PANW | Price vs 50-day 16% vs -6.4%; vs 200-day 19% vs 65.9% |
| Risk Resilience | PANW | Risk Resilience 35 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | SMCI | Target upside 11.8% vs 6.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SMCI and PANW 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 SMCI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1SMCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SMCI +12
- 60 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- SMCI +14
- 61 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- PANW +4
- 49 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 21 when SMCI moved ahead of PANW.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (49.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
SMCI 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 -0.99%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -10.75%, 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 Value gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMCI's edge.
- 2PANW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3SMCI'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
PANW leads on balance| Metric | SMCI | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 15.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 133.3% | -147.5% |
| Gross margin | 10.8% | 71.9% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% | 9.6% |
| Return on equity | 24.9% | 6.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.6 | 0.07 |
Technicals
PANW has the stronger structure| Metric | SMCI | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.3 | 49.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.2 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16% | -6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19% | 65.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 95.9% | 62.7% |
Risk
PANW is the more resilient| Metric | SMCI | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.75 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 1.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | 2.82 |
| Max drawdown | -65% | -36% |
| Current drawdown | -36.5% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 91.6% | 43.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SMCI or PANW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SMCI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 60 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 SMCI or PANW the better buy right now?
SMCI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 SMCI over PANW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SMCI leads Value by 48 points; SMCI leads Momentum by 15 points; PANW leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SMCI or PANW?
Analyst price targets imply +11.8% upside for SMCI and +6.5% for PANW, so the Street currently favors SMCI. 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, SMCI or PANW?
SMCI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SMCI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 48 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, SMCI or PANW?
SMCI 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, SMCI or PANW?
SMCI 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, SMCI or PANW?
PANW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PANW on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 SMCI more profitable than PANW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 10.8% vs 71.9%; operating margin 7.1% vs 9.6%; roe 24.9% vs 6.3%. SMCI leads on one measure and PANW on two measures, 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 SMCI's lead over PANW getting stronger or weaker?
SMCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-21, when SMCI moved ahead of PANW.
What would change the SMCI vs PANW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PANW closes the Value gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMCI's edge; PANW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; SMCI'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 SMCI and PANW?
SMCI: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PANW: 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 SMCI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PANW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SMCI and PANW 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.