CRWD vs ZS Stock Comparison
Compare CRWD and ZS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CRWD and ZS?
CRWD leads the current stock comparison as CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
CRWD leads
CRWD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from ZS. Wall Street currently favors ZS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRWD, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRWD over ZS, 47 versus 42 as of Sep 9, 2026. CRWD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while ZS holds the stronger value profile. CRWD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ZS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRWD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. CRWD lead: Reversed — ZS led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRWD now leads by 5.
Compare CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. and Zscaler, 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 CRWD 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.
- Momentum62 vs 41CRWD +21
- Quality59 vs 48CRWD +11
- Value24 vs 34ZS +10
- Risk Resilience47 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRWD. CRWD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; ZS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-07, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-06.
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 — CRWD and ZS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRWD (CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
CRWDCRWD 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
CRWDCRWD on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
ZSZS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ZSZS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CRWD, analyst targets favor ZS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRWD | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.9% | +17.6% | ZS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +154.5% | +44.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 32 | 27 | 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
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 | 47 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | CRWDon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -81.1% vs 57.1%; TTM ROE 1.3% vs -3.7%; gross margin 75.2% vs 76.7%; operating margin -2.2% vs -4.7% — CRWD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZS | Value 24 vs 34 |
| Technicals | CRWD | Price vs 50-day 4.6% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 49.6% vs -1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 47 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | ZS | Target upside -0.9% vs 17.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRWD 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 28 – Sep 7CRWD lead: Reversed — ZS led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRWD now leads by 5.
- Today
- CRWD +5
- 47 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- CRWD +4
- 46 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- ZS +2
- 53 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- ZS +1
- 52 vs 53
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when ZS 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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (40.93%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.14%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.31%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 -1.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -4.63%, 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.
- 1ZS closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWD's edge.
- 2ZS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CRWD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CRWD leads on balance| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -81.1% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 75.2% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | -2.2% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.3% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.79 |
Performance
CRWD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -7.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | 0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 27% | 29.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 98.7% | 3.5% |
| Year to date | 81.8% | -24.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 106.3% | -37.2% |
Technicals
CRWD has the stronger structure| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.7 | 41.6 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 21.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.6% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 49.6% | -1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 93.1% | 64.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CRWD | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -1.17 | 1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | -0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.75 | -0.49 |
| Max drawdown | -77.1% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -72.8% | -49.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 314.1% | 63.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRWD or ZS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRWD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 9, 2026, scoring 47 against ZS's 42. The edge comes from momentum and quality. ZS 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 CRWD or ZS the better buy right now?
CRWD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 9, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRWD over ZS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRWD leads Momentum by 21 points; CRWD leads Quality by 11 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, CRWD or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply -0.9% upside for CRWD and +17.6% for ZS, so the Street currently favors ZS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CRWD. 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, CRWD 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, CRWD 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, CRWD or ZS?
CRWD on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, CRWD or ZS?
ZS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CRWD more profitable than ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.2% vs 76.7%; operating margin -2.2% vs -4.7%; ttm roe 1.3% vs -3.7%. CRWD 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 CRWD's lead over ZS getting stronger or weaker?
CRWD lead: Reversed — ZS led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRWD now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-28 and 2026-09-07. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when ZS moved ahead of CRWD.
What would change the CRWD vs ZS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZS closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWD's edge; ZS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CRWD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CRWD and ZS?
CRWD: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ZS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on CRWD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRWD and ZS with others
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.