Software - Infrastructure
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
INTZ vs PANW vs FTNT vs QLYS vs TENB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
INTZ vs PANW vs FTNT vs QLYS vs TENB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure |
| Market Cap | $16M | $138.16B | $79.89B | $3.34B | $2.47B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $7M | $9.89B | $7.11B | $685M | $1.02B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-9M | $1.28B | $1.95B | $201M | $-12M |
| Gross Margin | 75.8% | 73.5% | 80.7% | 83.1% | 78.2% |
| Operating Margin | -129.1% | 14.4% | 31.1% | 33.7% | 2.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | 56.4x | 36.4x | 12.4x | 11.1x |
| Total Debt | $2M | $338M | $996M | $97M | $466M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4M | $2.27B | $2.50B | $250M | $188M |
INTZ vs PANW vs FTNT vs QLYS vs TENB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intrusion Inc. (INTZ) | 100 | 0.8 | -99.2% |
| Palo Alto Networks,… (PANW) | 100 | 530.2 | +430.2% |
| Fortinet, Inc. (FTNT) | 100 | 409.7 | +309.7% |
| Qualys, Inc. (QLYS) | 100 | 81.8 | -18.2% |
| Tenable Holdings, I… (TENB) | 100 | 69.8 | -30.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: INTZ vs PANW vs FTNT vs QLYS vs TENB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
INTZ is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 22.9%, EPS growth 68.9%, 3Y rev CAGR -2.0%
- 22.9% revenue growth vs QLYS's 10.1%
PANW ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +4.5% vs INTZ's -37.5%
FTNT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 15.8% 10Y total return vs PANW's 7.5%
- 19.4% ROA vs INTZ's -62.0%
QLYS has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- beta 0.53
- Lower volatility, beta 0.53, Low D/E 17.3%, current ratio 1.41x
- PEG 0.64 vs FTNT's 1.10
- Beta 0.53, current ratio 1.41x
TENB is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (11.1x vs 36.4x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 22.9% revenue growth vs QLYS's 10.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.1x vs 36.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 29.4% margin vs INTZ's -127.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.53 vs INTZ's 2.65, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +4.5% vs INTZ's -37.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.4% ROA vs INTZ's -62.0% |
INTZ vs PANW vs FTNT vs QLYS vs TENB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
INTZ vs PANW vs FTNT vs QLYS vs TENB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
QLYS leads in 1 of 6 categories
TENB leads 1 • PANW leads 1 • INTZ leads 0 • FTNT leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
QLYS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PANW is the larger business by revenue, generating $9.9B annually — 1394.2x INTZ's $7M. QLYS is the more profitable business, keeping 29.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to INTZ's -127.6%. On growth, FTNT holds the edge at +20.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $7M | $9.9B | $7.1B | $685M | $1.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$8M | $1.9B | $2.3B | $241M | $72M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$9M | $1.3B | $2.0B | $201M | -$12M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$9M | $4.1B | $2.4B | $290M | $263M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +75.8% | +73.5% | +80.7% | +83.1% | +78.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -129.1% | +14.4% | +31.1% | +33.7% | +2.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -127.6% | +13.0% | +27.5% | +29.4% | -1.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -131.2% | +41.1% | +34.3% | +42.4% | +25.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -11.6% | +14.9% | +20.1% | +9.8% | +9.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +56.3% | +57.9% | +28.6% | +10.1% | +106.3% |
Valuation Metrics
TENB leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.5x trailing earnings, QLYS trades at a 86% valuation discount to PANW's 122.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), QLYS offers better value at 0.90x vs FTNT's 1.34x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $16M | $138.2B | $79.9B | $3.3B | $2.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $14M | $136.2B | $78.4B | $3.2B | $2.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.74x | 122.83x | 44.43x | 17.45x | -71.80x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 56.39x | 36.44x | 12.43x | 11.06x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.34x | 0.90x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 85.88x | 35.09x | 13.49x | 63.60x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.30x | 14.98x | 11.75x | 5.00x | 2.47x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.18x | 17.82x | 65.26x | 6.17x | 7.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 39.82x | 35.89x | 10.98x | 9.69x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — PANW and FTNT each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FTNT delivers a 155.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $156 in annual profit, vs $-86 for INTZ. PANW carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TENB's 1.43x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FTNT scores 7/9 vs PANW's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -86.0% | +13.6% | +155.7% | +37.2% | -3.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -62.0% | +5.1% | +19.4% | +19.1% | -0.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -144.1% | +17.1% | — | +47.5% | +0.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -111.5% | +8.9% | +37.7% | +37.8% | +0.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.24x | 0.04x | 0.81x | 0.17x | 1.43x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$2M | -$1.9B | -$1.5B | -$153M | $278M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4M | $2.3B | $2.5B | $250M | $188M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2M | $338M | $996M | $97M | $466M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -111.59x | 1559.00x | 214.35x | — | 1.02x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PANW leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PANW five years ago would be worth $34,443 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $39 for INTZ. Over the past 12 months, PANW leads with a +4.5% total return vs INTZ's -37.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PANW at 27.1% vs INTZ's -68.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -33.9% | +9.6% | +38.6% | -27.5% | -5.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -37.5% | +4.5% | +1.2% | -25.6% | -31.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.7% | +105.2% | +63.4% | -17.7% | -41.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.6% | +244.4% | +154.9% | -3.1% | -41.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -88.2% | +746.7% | +1584.4% | +267.2% | -28.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -68.1% | +27.1% | +17.8% | -6.3% | -16.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FTNT and QLYS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
QLYS is the less volatile stock with a 0.53 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than INTZ's 2.65 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FTNT currently trades 96.1% from its 52-week high vs INTZ's 30.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.40x | 1.02x | 1.01x | 0.46x | 1.14x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.64 | $223.61 | $112.39 | $155.47 | $35.69 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.73 | $139.57 | $70.12 | $74.51 | $15.73 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +30.3% | +87.9% | +96.1% | +61.1% | +60.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 43.7 | 61.6 | 64.3 | 54.2 | 60.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 133K | 7.5M | 5.8M | 773K | 3.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: PANW as "Buy", FTNT as "Hold", QLYS as "Hold", TENB as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 29.7% upside for TENB (target: $28) vs -10.5% for FTNT (target: $97).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $208.65 | $96.59 | $103.00 | $27.94 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 86 | 68 | 48 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 5 | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +2.9% | +5.5% | +10.0% |
QLYS leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). TENB leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
INTZ vs PANW vs FTNT vs QLYS vs TENB: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Intrusion Inc.
(INTZ) is the stronger pick with 22. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 10. 1% for Qualys, Inc. (QLYS). Qualys, Inc. (QLYS) offers the better valuation at 17. 5x trailing P/E (12. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PANW) a "Buy" — based on 86 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 — INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB?
On trailing P/E, Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is the cheapest at 17. 5x versus Palo Alto Networks, Inc. at 122. 8x. On forward P/E, Tenable Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Qualys, Inc. wins at 0. 64x versus Fortinet, Inc. 's 1. 10x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB?
Over the past 5 years, Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
(PANW) delivered a total return of +244. 4%, compared to -99. 6% for Intrusion Inc. (INTZ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FTNT returned +1680% versus INTZ's -88. 7%. 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 — INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 46β versus Intrusion Inc. 's 2. 40β — meaning INTZ is approximately 422% more volatile than QLYS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PANW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 143% for Tenable Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Intrusion Inc.
(INTZ) is pulling ahead at 22. 9% versus 10. 1% for Qualys, Inc. (QLYS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Intrusion Inc. grew EPS 68. 9% year-over-year, compared to -56. 0% for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, PANW leads at 18. 8% 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 — INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB?
Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is the more profitable company, earning 29. 6% net margin versus -127. 7% for Intrusion Inc. — meaning it keeps 29. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: QLYS leads at 33. 2% versus -129. 2% for INTZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — QLYS leads at 82. 8%, 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 INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB 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, Qualys, Inc. (QLYS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 64x versus Fortinet, Inc. 's 1. 10x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Tenable Holdings, Inc. (TENB) trades at 11. 1x forward P/E versus 56. 4x for Palo Alto Networks, Inc. — 45. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TENB: 29. 7% to $27. 94.
08Which pays a better dividend — INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
09Is INTZ or PANW or FTNT or QLYS or TENB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Fortinet, Inc.
(FTNT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 01), +1680% 10Y return). Intrusion Inc. (INTZ) carries a higher beta of 2. 40 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FTNT: +1680%, INTZ: -88. 7%), 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 INTZ and PANW and FTNT and QLYS and TENB?
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: INTZ is a small-cap high-growth stock; PANW is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; FTNT is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; QLYS is a small-cap deep-value stock; TENB is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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.