Software - Infrastructure
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
RDWR vs NTCT vs FFIV vs QLYS vs CSCO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
Software - Infrastructure
Communication Equipment
RDWR vs NTCT vs FFIV vs QLYS vs CSCO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Software - Infrastructure | Communication Equipment |
| Market Cap | $1.19B | $2.82B | $20.01B | $3.32B | $382.42B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $310M | $861M | $3.22B | $685M | $59.05B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $19M | $96M | $708M | $201M | $11.08B |
| Gross Margin | 80.8% | 79.2% | 81.9% | 83.1% | 64.4% |
| Operating Margin | 4.8% | 12.8% | 24.6% | 33.7% | 23.0% |
| Forward P/E | 23.5x | 16.2x | 21.5x | 12.4x | 23.2x |
| Total Debt | $17M | $76M | $493M | $97M | $29.64B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $105M | $457M | $1.34B | $250M | $9.47B |
RDWR vs NTCT vs FFIV vs QLYS vs CSCO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radware Ltd. (RDWR) | 100 | 115.4 | +15.4% |
| NetScout Systems, I… (NTCT) | 100 | 142.3 | +42.3% |
| F5, Inc. (FFIV) | 100 | 244.3 | +144.3% |
| Qualys, Inc. (QLYS) | 100 | 81.8 | -18.2% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) | 100 | 201.9 | +101.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RDWR vs NTCT vs FFIV vs QLYS vs CSCO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RDWR is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.94, Low D/E 4.4%, current ratio 1.63x
NTCT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +81.3% vs QLYS's -29.4%
Among these 5 stocks, FFIV doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
QLYS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- beta 0.46
- Rev growth 10.1%, EPS growth 17.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.0%
- PEG 0.64 vs RDWR's 1.34
- Beta 0.46, current ratio 1.41x
CSCO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 318.3% 10Y total return vs FFIV's 247.6%
- 1.7% yield; 15-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.1% revenue growth vs NTCT's -0.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.4x vs 23.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 29.4% margin vs RDWR's 6.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.46 vs NTCT's 1.10 | |
| Dividends | 1.7% yield; 15-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +81.3% vs QLYS's -29.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.1% ROA vs RDWR's 2.9%, ROIC 47.5% vs 3.0% |
RDWR vs NTCT vs FFIV vs QLYS vs CSCO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RDWR vs NTCT vs FFIV vs QLYS vs CSCO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
QLYS leads in 3 of 6 categories
RDWR leads 0 • NTCT leads 0 • FFIV leads 0 • CSCO 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)
CSCO is the larger business by revenue, generating $59.1B annually — 190.8x RDWR's $310M. QLYS is the more profitable business, keeping 29.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RDWR's 6.3%. On growth, FFIV holds the edge at +11.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $310M | $861M | $3.2B | $685M | $59.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $23M | $171M | $867M | $241M | $16.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $19M | $96M | $708M | $201M | $11.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $36M | $275M | $963M | $290M | $12.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +80.8% | +79.2% | +81.9% | +83.1% | +64.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +4.8% | +12.8% | +24.6% | +33.7% | +23.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.3% | +11.1% | +22.0% | +29.4% | +18.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +11.8% | +32.0% | +29.9% | +42.4% | +21.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +10.7% | -0.5% | +11.0% | +9.8% | +9.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -19.0% | +11.9% | +4.0% | +10.1% | +29.5% |
Valuation Metrics
QLYS leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.3x trailing earnings, QLYS trades at a 72% valuation discount to RDWR's 61.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), QLYS offers better value at 0.89x vs RDWR's 3.47x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $2.8B | $20.0B | $3.3B | $382.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.1B | $2.4B | $19.2B | $3.2B | $402.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 61.07x | -7.73x | 30.00x | 17.33x | 37.87x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 23.54x | 16.20x | 21.48x | 12.43x | 23.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.47x | — | 1.61x | 0.89x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 47.53x | — | 22.32x | 13.40x | 27.53x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.93x | 3.43x | 6.48x | 4.96x | 6.75x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.14x | 1.82x | 5.78x | 6.12x | 8.24x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 28.53x | 13.38x | 22.08x | 10.91x | 28.78x |
Profitability & Efficiency
QLYS leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
QLYS delivers a 37.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $37 in annual profit, vs $5 for RDWR. 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), FFIV scores 8/9 vs QLYS's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +5.1% | +6.1% | +19.9% | +37.2% | +23.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.9% | +4.3% | +11.2% | +19.1% | +9.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.0% | -19.3% | +21.8% | +47.5% | +13.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.5% | -18.5% | +17.3% | +37.8% | +13.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.04x | 0.05x | 0.14x | 0.17x | 0.63x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$88M | -$381M | -$852M | -$153M | $20.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $105M | $457M | $1.3B | $250M | $9.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17M | $76M | $493M | $97M | $29.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 55.89x | — | — | 9.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — NTCT and FFIV and CSCO each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CSCO five years ago would be worth $19,643 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $9,357 for QLYS. Over the past 12 months, NTCT leads with a +81.3% total return vs QLYS's -29.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FFIV at 37.9% vs QLYS's -6.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +15.6% | +45.6% | +38.0% | -28.0% | +28.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +24.7% | +81.3% | +29.6% | -29.4% | +64.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +41.4% | +33.0% | +162.2% | -18.2% | +118.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +0.2% | +46.6% | +93.8% | -6.4% | +96.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +156.6% | +70.0% | +247.6% | +264.7% | +318.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +12.2% | +10.0% | +37.9% | -6.5% | +29.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FFIV and QLYS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
QLYS is the less volatile stock with a 0.46 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NTCT's 1.10 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FFIV currently trades 99.9% from its 52-week high vs QLYS's 60.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.94x | 1.10x | 1.03x | 0.46x | 0.90x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $31.57 | $39.69 | $354.52 | $155.47 | $97.02 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $21.43 | $19.98 | $223.76 | $74.51 | $59.43 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +87.0% | +98.5% | +99.9% | +60.6% | +99.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.3 | 78.2 | 70.8 | 60.0 | 65.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 229K | 556K | 698K | 772K | 19.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RDWR as "Hold", NTCT as "Hold", FFIV as "Hold", QLYS as "Hold", CSCO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 9.2% upside for QLYS (target: $103) vs -12.2% for FFIV (target: $311). CSCO is the only dividend payer here at 1.67% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $25.00 | $38.00 | $310.67 | $103.00 | $99.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 14 | 21 | 61 | 48 | 73 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +1.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $1.61 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | +0.9% | +2.5% | +5.5% | +1.9% |
QLYS leads in 3 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Valuation Metrics. 2 categories are tied.
RDWR vs NTCT vs FFIV vs QLYS vs CSCO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RDWR or NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is the stronger pick with 10. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 8% for NetScout Systems, Inc. (NTCT). Qualys, Inc. (QLYS) offers the better valuation at 17. 3x trailing P/E (12. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) a "Buy" — based on 73 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 NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO?
On trailing P/E, Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is the cheapest at 17. 3x versus Radware Ltd. at 61. 1x. On forward P/E, Qualys, Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 4x. 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 Radware Ltd. 's 1. 34x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RDWR or NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO?
Over the past 5 years, Cisco Systems, Inc.
(CSCO) delivered a total return of +96. 4%, compared to -6. 4% for Qualys, Inc. (QLYS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CSCO returned +318. 3% versus NTCT's +70. 0%. 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 NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 46β versus NetScout Systems, Inc. 's 1. 10β — meaning NTCT is approximately 140% more volatile than QLYS 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 NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is pulling ahead at 10. 1% versus -0. 8% for NetScout Systems, Inc. (NTCT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Radware Ltd. grew EPS 221. 4% year-over-year, compared to -144. 4% for NetScout Systems, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, QLYS leads at 11. 0% 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 NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO?
Qualys, Inc.
(QLYS) is the more profitable company, earning 29. 6% net margin versus -44. 6% for NetScout Systems, 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 -44. 7% for NTCT. 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 RDWR or NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO 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 Radware Ltd. 's 1. 34x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Qualys, Inc. (QLYS) trades at 12. 4x forward P/E versus 23. 5x for Radware Ltd. — 11. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for QLYS: 9. 2% to $103. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — RDWR or NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO?
In this comparison, CSCO (1.
7% yield) pays a dividend. RDWR, NTCT, FFIV, QLYS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RDWR or NTCT or FFIV or QLYS or CSCO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Cisco Systems, Inc.
(CSCO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 90), 1. 7% yield, +318. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CSCO: +318. 3%, NTCT: +70. 0%), 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 NTCT and FFIV and QLYS and CSCO?
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: RDWR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NTCT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FFIV is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; QLYS is a small-cap deep-value stock; CSCO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. CSCO pays a dividend while RDWR, NTCT, FFIV, QLYS 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.