Software - Infrastructure
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
RDWR vs MSFT vs AMZN vs CSCO vs INTC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Infrastructure
Specialty Retail
Communication Equipment
Semiconductors
RDWR vs MSFT vs AMZN vs CSCO vs INTC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Specialty Retail | Communication Equipment | Semiconductors |
| Market Cap | $1.16B | $3.07T | $2.96T | $362.87B | $567.42B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $302M | $318.27B | $742.78B | $59.05B | $53.76B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $20M | $125.22B | $90.80B | $11.08B | $-3.17B |
| Gross Margin | 80.7% | 68.3% | 50.6% | 64.4% | 35.4% |
| Operating Margin | 3.8% | 46.8% | 11.5% | 23.0% | -9.4% |
| Forward P/E | 24.2x | 24.9x | 35.3x | 22.1x | 108.4x |
| Total Debt | $17M | $112.18B | $152.99B | $29.64B | $46.59B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $105M | $30.24B | $86.81B | $9.47B | $14.27B |
RDWR vs MSFT vs AMZN vs CSCO vs INTC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radware Ltd. (RDWR) | 100 | 112.8 | +12.8% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 225.8 | +125.8% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 225.1 | +125.1% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) | 100 | 191.6 | +91.6% |
| Intel Corporation (INTC) | 100 | 179.6 | +79.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RDWR vs MSFT vs AMZN vs CSCO vs INTC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RDWR lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MSFT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 14.9%, EPS growth 15.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.4%
- 7.7% 10Y total return vs INTC's 307.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.89, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- Beta 0.89, yield 0.8%, current ratio 1.35x
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 1.26 vs RDWR's 1.37
CSCO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 0.92, yield 1.8%
- Lower P/E (22.1x vs 108.4x)
INTC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +466.8% vs MSFT's -3.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.9% revenue growth vs INTC's -0.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (22.1x vs 108.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs INTC's -5.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.89 vs INTC's 2.15, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 0.8% yield, 19-year raise streak, vs CSCO's 1.8%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +466.8% vs MSFT's -3.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.2% ROA vs INTC's -1.6%, ROIC 24.9% vs -0.0% |
RDWR vs MSFT vs AMZN vs CSCO vs INTC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RDWR vs MSFT vs AMZN vs CSCO vs INTC — 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
INTC leads 1 • RDWR leads 0 • AMZN leads 0 • CSCO leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 2460.7x RDWR's $302M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to INTC's -5.9%. On growth, MSFT holds the edge at +18.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $302M | $318.3B | $742.8B | $59.1B | $53.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $23M | $192.6B | $155.9B | $16.1B | $4.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $20M | $125.2B | $90.8B | $11.1B | -$3.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $43M | $72.9B | -$2.5B | $12.8B | -$3.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +80.7% | +68.3% | +50.6% | +64.4% | +35.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.8% | +46.8% | +11.5% | +23.0% | -9.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.7% | +39.3% | +12.2% | +18.8% | -5.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +14.2% | +22.9% | -0.3% | +21.8% | -5.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.9% | +18.3% | +16.6% | +9.7% | +7.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +131.7% | +23.4% | +74.8% | +29.5% | -2.8% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — RDWR and CSCO each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 30.3x trailing earnings, MSFT trades at a 49% valuation discount to RDWR's 59.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMZN offers better value at 1.37x vs RDWR's 3.39x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $3.07T | $2.96T | $362.9B | $567.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.1B | $3.16T | $3.02T | $383.0B | $599.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 59.69x | 30.34x | 38.35x | 35.93x | -1918.68x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 24.19x | 24.91x | 35.26x | 22.05x | 108.35x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.39x | 1.61x | 1.37x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 46.37x | 19.40x | 20.74x | 26.20x | 51.33x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.84x | 10.91x | 4.12x | 6.41x | 10.74x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.07x | 8.99x | 7.24x | 7.82x | 4.34x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 27.89x | 42.93x | 384.26x | 27.31x | — |
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 $-3 for INTC. RDWR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CSCO's 0.63x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CSCO scores 8/9 vs INTC's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +5.3% | +33.1% | +23.3% | +23.2% | -2.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +3.1% | +19.2% | +11.5% | +9.0% | -1.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.0% | +24.9% | +14.7% | +13.0% | -0.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.5% | +29.7% | +15.3% | +13.7% | -0.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.04x | 0.33x | 0.37x | 0.63x | 0.37x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$88M | $81.9B | $66.2B | $20.2B | $32.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $105M | $30.2B | $86.8B | $9.5B | $14.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17M | $112.2B | $153.0B | $29.6B | $46.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 55.65x | 39.96x | 9.64x | 3.71x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
INTC leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in INTC five years ago would be worth $20,393 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $9,757 for RDWR. Over the past 12 months, INTC leads with a +466.8% total return vs MSFT's -3.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors INTC at 54.6% vs MSFT's 11.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +13.0% | -12.3% | +21.4% | +21.6% | +187.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +18.0% | -3.7% | +48.6% | +57.5% | +466.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +38.2% | +37.2% | +159.8% | +108.2% | +269.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -2.4% | +71.5% | +66.3% | +89.7% | +103.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +151.7% | +768.1% | +715.9% | +299.4% | +307.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +11.4% | +11.1% | +37.5% | +27.7% | +54.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MSFT and INTC 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 INTC's 2.15 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. INTC currently trades 99.6% from its 52-week high vs MSFT's 74.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.99x | 0.89x | 1.51x | 0.92x | 2.15x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $31.57 | $555.45 | $278.56 | $94.72 | $113.50 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $21.29 | $356.28 | $183.85 | $58.58 | $18.97 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +85.1% | +74.5% | +98.7% | +96.7% | +99.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 59.2 | 52.6 | 80.5 | 74.9 | 84.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 227K | 32.8M | 45.6M | 19.0M | 109.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MSFT and CSCO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RDWR as "Hold", MSFT as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy", CSCO as "Buy", INTC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 33.3% upside for MSFT (target: $552) vs -31.7% for INTC (target: $77). For income investors, CSCO offers the higher dividend yield at 1.76% vs MSFT's 0.78%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $25.00 | $551.75 | $306.77 | $96.50 | $77.18 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 14 | 81 | 94 | 73 | 84 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.8% | — | +1.8% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 19 | — | 15 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $3.23 | — | $1.61 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | +0.6% | 0.0% | +2.0% | 0.0% |
MSFT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). INTC leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
RDWR vs MSFT vs AMZN vs CSCO vs INTC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger pick with 14.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 5% for Intel Corporation (INTC). Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) offers the better valuation at 30. 3x trailing P/E (24. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) a "Buy" — based on 81 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 — RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC?
On trailing P/E, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the cheapest at 30.
3x versus Radware Ltd. at 59. 7x. On forward P/E, Cisco Systems, Inc. is actually cheaper at 22. 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: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 1. 26x versus Radware Ltd. 's 1. 37x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC?
Over the past 5 years, Intel Corporation (INTC) delivered a total return of +103.
9%, compared to -2. 4% for Radware Ltd. (RDWR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MSFT returned +768. 1% versus RDWR's +151. 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 — RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
89β versus Intel Corporation's 2. 15β — meaning INTC is approximately 143% more volatile than MSFT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Radware Ltd. (RDWR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 63% for Cisco Systems, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is pulling ahead at 14.
9% versus -0. 5% for Intel Corporation (INTC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Radware Ltd. grew EPS 221. 4% year-over-year, compared to 0. 4% for Cisco Systems, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MSFT leads at 12. 4% 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 — RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -0. 5% for Intel Corporation — 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 -0. 0% for INTC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RDWR leads at 80. 7%, 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 RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC 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, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 26x versus Radware Ltd. 's 1. 37x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) trades at 22. 1x forward P/E versus 108. 4x for Intel Corporation — 86. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MSFT: 33. 3% to $551. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC?
In this comparison, CSCO (1.
8% yield), MSFT (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. RDWR, AMZN, INTC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RDWR or MSFT or AMZN or CSCO or INTC 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, +768. 1% 10Y return). Intel Corporation (INTC) carries a higher beta of 2. 15 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +768. 1%, INTC: +307. 3%), 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 RDWR and MSFT and AMZN and CSCO and INTC?
These companies operate in different sectors (RDWR (Technology) and MSFT (Technology) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and CSCO (Technology) and INTC (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
MSFT, CSCO pay a dividend while RDWR, AMZN, INTC 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.