Software - Application
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
IMMR vs VRNS vs MSFT vs CYBR vs NOW
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Application
IMMR vs VRNS vs MSFT vs CYBR vs NOW — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Application | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Application |
| Market Cap | $211M | $3.37B | $3.13T | $20.64B | $96.96B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.47B | $660M | $318.27B | $1.36B | $13.96B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $66M | $-137M | $125.22B | $-147M | $1.76B |
| Gross Margin | 27.8% | 78.1% | 68.3% | 74.3% | 76.6% |
| Operating Margin | 9.1% | -21.9% | 46.8% | -7.7% | 13.4% |
| Forward P/E | 15.5x | 242.2x | 25.3x | 81.9x | 22.5x |
| Total Debt | $322M | $572M | $112.18B | $1.22B | $3.20B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $78M | $202M | $30.24B | $623M | $3.73B |
IMMR vs VRNS vs MSFT vs CYBR vs NOW — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immersion Corporati… (IMMR) | 100 | 96.0 | -4.0% |
| Varonis Systems, In… (VRNS) | 100 | 102.0 | +2.0% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 229.7 | +129.7% |
| CyberArk Software L… (CYBR) | 100 | 415.1 | +315.1% |
| ServiceNow, Inc. (NOW) | 100 | 24.1 | -75.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: IMMR vs VRNS vs MSFT vs CYBR vs NOW
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
IMMR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 35.4%, EPS growth 295.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 227.7%
- 35.4% revenue growth vs VRNS's 13.2%
- 6.0% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs MSFT's 0.8%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
Among these 5 stocks, VRNS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MSFT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 0.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.89, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- Beta 0.89, yield 0.8%, current ratio 1.35x
- 39.3% margin vs VRNS's -20.7%
CYBR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 9.0% 10Y total return vs MSFT's 7.9%
- +13.3% vs NOW's -90.5%
NOW is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.32 vs MSFT's 1.35
- Lower P/E (22.5x vs 81.9x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 35.4% revenue growth vs VRNS's 13.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (22.5x vs 81.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs VRNS's -20.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.89 vs IMMR's 1.52, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 6.0% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs MSFT's 0.8%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +13.3% vs NOW's -90.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.2% ROA vs VRNS's -8.2%, ROIC 24.9% vs -11.0% |
IMMR vs VRNS vs MSFT vs CYBR vs NOW — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
IMMR vs VRNS vs MSFT vs CYBR vs NOW — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories
IMMR leads 1 • CYBR leads 1 • VRNS leads 0 • NOW leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT is the larger business by revenue, generating $318.3B annually — 482.1x VRNS's $660M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to VRNS's -20.7%. On growth, IMMR holds the edge at +5.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.5B | $660M | $318.3B | $1.4B | $14.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $166M | -$135M | $192.6B | $23M | $2.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $66M | -$137M | $125.2B | -$147M | $1.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$69M | $120M | $72.9B | $259M | $4.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +27.8% | +78.1% | +68.3% | +74.3% | +76.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +9.1% | -21.9% | +46.8% | -7.7% | +13.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +4.5% | -20.7% | +39.3% | -10.8% | +12.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -4.7% | +18.1% | +22.9% | +19.0% | +33.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +5.4% | +26.9% | +18.3% | +18.5% | +22.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -137.3% | 0.0% | +23.4% | +83.2% | +2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
IMMR leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 1.6x trailing earnings, IMMR trades at a 97% valuation discount to NOW's 56.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), NOW offers better value at 0.81x vs MSFT's 1.64x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $211M | $3.4B | $3.13T | $20.6B | $97.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $455M | $3.7B | $3.21T | $21.2B | $96.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 1.58x | -25.38x | 30.86x | -139.54x | 56.04x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 15.49x | 242.23x | 25.34x | 81.87x | 22.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.64x | — | 0.81x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 2.95x | — | 19.72x | 908.21x | 37.64x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.17x | 5.40x | 11.10x | 15.16x | 7.30x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.38x | 6.19x | 9.15x | 8.54x | 7.56x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 24.99x | 43.66x | 79.60x | 21.19x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT delivers a 33.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-27 for VRNS. NOW carries lower financial leverage with a 0.25x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to VRNS's 0.96x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MSFT scores 6/9 vs IMMR's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.0% | -27.4% | +33.1% | -6.1% | +15.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.3% | -8.2% | +19.2% | -3.0% | +7.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +21.2% | -11.0% | +24.9% | -3.2% | +12.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +25.8% | -14.0% | +29.7% | -3.3% | +13.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.57x | 0.96x | 0.33x | 0.51x | 0.25x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $244M | $369M | $81.9B | $599M | -$523M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $78M | $202M | $30.2B | $623M | $3.7B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $322M | $572M | $112.2B | $1.2B | $3.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 12.24x | -9.01x | 55.65x | — | 185.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CYBR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CYBR five years ago would be worth $34,006 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,935 for NOW. Over the past 12 months, CYBR leads with a +13.3% total return vs NOW's -90.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CYBR at 43.4% vs NOW's -40.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +3.6% | -10.5% | -10.8% | -6.1% | -36.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -6.1% | -36.7% | -2.1% | +13.3% | -90.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +3.4% | +23.7% | +39.5% | +194.8% | -78.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -6.1% | -39.9% | +72.5% | +240.1% | -80.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +13.3% | +317.5% | +787.7% | +901.8% | +38.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +1.1% | +7.3% | +11.7% | +43.4% | -40.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — IMMR and MSFT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MSFT is the less volatile stock with a 0.89 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than IMMR's 1.52 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMMR currently trades 79.6% from its 52-week high vs NOW's 8.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.52x | 0.95x | 0.89x | 0.92x | 1.46x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $8.15 | $63.90 | $555.45 | $526.19 | $1057.39 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.25 | $19.70 | $356.28 | $347.12 | $81.24 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +79.6% | +44.9% | +75.8% | +77.7% | +8.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.0 | 66.1 | 54.0 | 38.9 | 41.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 518K | 2.3M | 32.5M | 0 | 21.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — IMMR and MSFT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: IMMR as "Buy", VRNS as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy", CYBR as "Buy", NOW as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 61.9% upside for NOW (target: $152) vs 12.3% for CYBR (target: $459). For income investors, IMMR offers the higher dividend yield at 5.98% vs MSFT's 0.77%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $10.00 | $36.00 | $551.75 | $459.00 | $151.52 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 34 | 81 | 49 | 68 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +6.0% | — | +0.8% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | — | 19 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.39 | — | $3.23 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | +3.4% | +0.6% | +0.0% | +1.9% |
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). IMMR leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
IMMR vs VRNS vs MSFT vs CYBR vs NOW: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is the stronger pick with 35.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 13. 2% for Varonis Systems, Inc. (VRNS). Immersion Corporation (IMMR) offers the better valuation at 1. 6x trailing P/E (15. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Immersion Corporation (IMMR) a "Buy" — based on 15 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW?
On trailing P/E, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is the cheapest at 1.
6x versus ServiceNow, Inc. at 56. 0x. On forward P/E, Immersion Corporation is actually cheaper at 15. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: ServiceNow, Inc. wins at 0. 32x versus Microsoft Corporation's 1. 35x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW?
Over the past 5 years, CyberArk Software Ltd.
(CYBR) delivered a total return of +240. 1%, compared to -80. 6% for ServiceNow, Inc. (NOW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CYBR returned +901. 8% versus IMMR's +13. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
89β versus Immersion Corporation's 1. 52β — meaning IMMR is approximately 71% more volatile than MSFT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, ServiceNow, Inc. (NOW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 25% versus 96% for Varonis Systems, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is pulling ahead at 35.
4% versus 13. 2% for Varonis Systems, Inc. (VRNS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Immersion Corporation grew EPS 295. 2% year-over-year, compared to -38. 2% for CyberArk Software Ltd.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IMMR leads at 227. 7% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -20. 7% for Varonis Systems, Inc. — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus -23. 5% for VRNS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — VRNS leads at 79. 1%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, ServiceNow, Inc. (NOW) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 32x versus Microsoft Corporation's 1. 35x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) trades at 15. 5x forward P/E versus 242. 2x for Varonis Systems, Inc. — 226. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NOW: 61. 9% to $151. 52.
08Which pays a better dividend — IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW?
In this comparison, IMMR (6.
0% yield), MSFT (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. VRNS, CYBR, NOW do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is IMMR or VRNS or MSFT or CYBR or NOW better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
89), 0. 8% yield, +787. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +787. 7%, NOW: +38. 8%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between IMMR and VRNS and MSFT and CYBR and NOW?
Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: IMMR is a small-cap high-growth stock; VRNS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MSFT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; CYBR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; NOW is a mid-cap high-growth stock. IMMR, MSFT pay a dividend while VRNS, CYBR, NOW do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.