SNOW vs CRWD Stock Comparison
Snowflake Inc. vs CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
CRWD leads
CRWD leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRWD, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Snowflake Inc.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRWD over SNOW, 48 versus 39 as of Sep 2, 2026. CRWD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. CRWD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRWD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CRWD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Snowflake Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, 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%39 vs 57CRWD +18
- Momentum25%52 vs 69CRWD +17
- Value30%24 vs 24Even
- Risk Resilience15%46 vs 46Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRWD. CRWD’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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.
CRWD's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SNOW and CRWD both carry a full feed there.
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
CRWDCRWD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
SNOWSNOW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CRWDCRWD on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
SNOWSNOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CRWDCRWD 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 | SNOW | CRWD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.6% | +1.1% | CRWD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +98.7% | +157% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 22 | 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 CRWD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRWD | 39 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 8.3% vs 6.1%; EPS growth 4.4% vs -26.7%; gross margin 67.1% vs 75%; operating margin -26.1% vs -3.9% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 24 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 5.7% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 52.4% vs 63.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | CRWD | Target upside -0.6% vs 1.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SNOW and CRWD 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 moderate at 9 points.
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CRWD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1CRWD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRWD +9
- 39 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- CRWD +9
- 38 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CRWD +6
- 48 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CRWD +8
- 39 vs 47
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when SNOW moved ahead of CRWD.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (32.92%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (40.08%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
SNOW is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -4.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.71%, 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.
- 1SNOW closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWD's edge.
- 2SNOW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CRWD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | SNOW | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.3% | 6.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.4% | -26.7% |
| Gross margin | 67.1% | 75% |
| Operating margin | -26.1% | -3.9% |
| Return on equity | -57.2% | -0.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.43 | 0.18 |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | SNOW | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.1 | 54.1 |
| ADX (14) | 28.3 | 25.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.7% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 52.4% | 63.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.8% | 75.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SNOW | CRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.23 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 1.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 2.71 |
| Max drawdown | -56.3% | -37.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1.8% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.9% | 53.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SNOW or CRWD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRWD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 48 against SNOW's 39. 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 SNOW or CRWD the better buy right now?
CRWD 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 CRWD over SNOW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CRWD leads Quality by 18 points; CRWD leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SNOW or CRWD?
Analyst price targets imply -0.6% upside for SNOW and +1.1% for CRWD, so the Street currently favors CRWD. 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, SNOW or CRWD?
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, SNOW or CRWD?
SNOW 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, SNOW or CRWD?
CRWD on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, SNOW or CRWD?
SNOW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SNOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is SNOW more profitable than CRWD?
CRWD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.1% vs 75%; operating margin -26.1% vs -3.9%; roe -57.2% vs -0.6%.
Is CRWD's lead over SNOW getting stronger or weaker?
CRWD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when SNOW moved ahead of CRWD.
What would change the SNOW vs CRWD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SNOW closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWD's edge; SNOW generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; CRWD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 SNOW and CRWD?
SNOW: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRWD: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 SNOW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRWD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SNOW and CRWD 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.