ZS vs FTNT Stock Comparison
FTNT currently leads ZS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality, while ZS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ZS and FTNT?
FTNT leads the current stock comparison as Fortinet, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Zscaler, Inc. vs Fortinet, Inc.
FTNT leads
FTNT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ZS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FTNT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Zscaler, Inc.
Fortinet, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTNT over ZS, 57 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. FTNT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ZS holds the stronger momentum profile. FTNT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ZS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTNT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FTNT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Zscaler, Inc. and Fortinet, 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 ZS and FTNT 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.
- Quality48 vs 95FTNT +47
- Momentum65 vs 46ZS +19
- Risk Resilience48 vs 57FTNT +9
- Value34 vs 27ZS +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FTNT. FTNT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ZS keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FTNT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ZS and FTNT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTNT (Fortinet, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 61.1% against 39.4%.
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
FTNTFTNT 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 7 points.
Momentum
ZSZS on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
FTNTFTNT on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
ZSZS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FTNT, analyst targets favor ZS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ZS | FTNT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -9.4% | -13.9% | ZS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73% | +93.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 30 | 25 | 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 FTNT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FTNT | 48 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | FTNTon balance | revenue growth 4.3% vs 10.7%; EPS growth 57.1% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE -3.7% vs 187.9%; gross margin 76.7% vs 80.4%; operating margin -4.7% vs 32.4% — FTNT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZS | Value 34 vs 27 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day 19.5% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 29.4% vs 37.1% |
| Risk Resilience | FTNT | Risk Resilience 48 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | ZS | Target upside -9.4% vs -13.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ZS and FTNT 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 FTNT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FTNT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FTNT +9
- 48 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- FTNT +10
- 53 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- FTNT +14
- 51 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- FTNT +7
- 54 vs 61
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
ZS and FTNT carry the same 5 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
FTNT 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 +7.84%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.83%, AIQ -1 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 Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge.
- 2ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3FTNT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate FTNT's advantage entirely.
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
FTNT leads on balance| Metric | ZS | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.3% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 57.1% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 76.7% | 80.4% |
| Operating margin | -4.7% | 32.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.7% | 187.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 0.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ZS | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -10.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.1% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 50.8% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 53.6% | 100.5% |
| Year to date | -4.6% | 115.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -28.3% | 105.6% |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | ZS | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.5 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 20.6 | 30.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 19.5% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.4% | 37.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61.1% | 39.4% |
Risk
FTNT is the more resilient| Metric | ZS | FTNT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.01 | 0.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | 1.79 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.24 | 3.22 |
| Max drawdown | -64.9% | -14.3% |
| Current drawdown | -36.2% | -12.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.9% | 43.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ZS or FTNT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FTNT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against ZS's 48. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. ZS is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ZS or FTNT the better buy right now?
FTNT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FTNT over ZS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FTNT leads Quality by 47 points; ZS leads Momentum by 19 points; FTNT leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ZS or FTNT?
Analyst price targets imply -9.4% upside for ZS and -13.9% for FTNT, so the Street currently favors ZS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FTNT. 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, ZS or FTNT?
ZS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, ZS or FTNT?
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, ZS or FTNT?
ZS on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, ZS or FTNT?
FTNT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FTNT on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 ZS more profitable than FTNT?
FTNT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 76.7% vs 80.4%; operating margin -4.7% vs 32.4%; ttm roe -3.7% vs 187.9%.
Is FTNT's lead over ZS getting stronger or weaker?
FTNT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ZS vs FTNT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZS closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTNT's edge; ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; FTNT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate FTNT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ZS and FTNT?
ZS: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FTNT: 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 ZS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FTNT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ZS and FTNT 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.