Communication Equipment
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
CRNT vs CSCO vs NTGR vs CIEN vs CALX vs JPM vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Communication Equipment
Communication Equipment
Communication Equipment
Software - Application
Banks - Diversified
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
CRNT vs CSCO vs NTGR vs CIEN vs CALX vs JPM vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Communication Equipment | Communication Equipment | Communication Equipment | Communication Equipment | Software - Application | Banks - Diversified | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $243M | $471.16B | $630M | $60.62B | $2.45B | $908.57B | $341.71B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $335M | $60.75B | $690M | $5.57B | $1.06B | $280.33B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-2M | $11.96B | $-40M | $438M | $34M | $57.05B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 34.4% | 64.3% | 37.5% | 43.0% | 57.1% | 60.0% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 3.0% | 23.4% | -4.4% | 11.2% | 3.8% | 25.9% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 20.1x | 28.0x | 115.3x | 65.6x | 21.4x | 14.6x | 24.3x |
| Total Debt | $50M | $28.09B | $51M | $1.58B | $26M | $942.38B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $38M | $8.35B | $210M | $1.09B | $143M | $343.34B | $10.27B |
CRNT vs CSCO vs NTGR vs CIEN vs CALX vs JPM vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ceragon Networks Lt… (CRNT) | 100 | 125.6 | +25.6% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) | 100 | 256.3 | +156.3% |
| NETGEAR, Inc. (NTGR) | 100 | 89.0 | -11.0% |
| Ciena Corporation (CIEN) | 100 | 790.7 | +690.7% |
| Calix, Inc. (CALX) | 100 | 254.7 | +154.7% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 345.8 | +245.8% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 177.7 | +77.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CRNT vs CSCO vs NTGR vs CIEN vs CALX vs JPM vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 7 stocks, CRNT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
CSCO doesn't hold a clear category lead here; it's more of a secondary option in this specific comparison.
In this particular matchup, NTGR is outpaced on most metrics by others in the set.
CIEN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 19.7% 10Y total return vs JPM's 481.2%
- +480.1% vs CALX's -19.5%
CALX is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 20.3%, EPS growth 157.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.93, Low D/E 3.0%, current ratio 4.24x
- 20.3% revenue growth vs CRNT's -14.1%
JPM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 0.87, yield 1.8%
- PEG 0.83 vs KO's 2.17
- Beta 0.87, yield 1.8%, current ratio 0.52x
- Lower P/E (14.6x vs 24.3x), PEG 0.83 vs 2.17
- Beta 0.87 vs CIEN's 2.60
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and dividends.
- 27.8% margin vs NTGR's -5.8%
- 2.6% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.8%, (4 stocks pay no dividend)
- 13.1% ROA vs NTGR's -4.9%, ROIC 15.8% vs -8.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 20.3% revenue growth vs CRNT's -14.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.6x vs 24.3x), PEG 0.83 vs 2.17 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs NTGR's -5.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.87 vs CIEN's 2.60 | |
| Dividends | 2.6% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.8%, (4 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +480.1% vs CALX's -19.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs NTGR's -4.9%, ROIC 15.8% vs -8.4% |
CRNT vs CSCO vs NTGR vs CIEN vs CALX vs JPM vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CRNT vs CSCO vs NTGR vs CIEN vs CALX vs JPM vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 7 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories
CIEN leads 1 • CRNT leads 0 • CSCO leads 0 • NTGR leads 0 • CALX leads 0 • JPM leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — CIEN and KO each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 836.6x CRNT's $335M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NTGR's -5.8%. On growth, CIEN holds the edge at +39.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $335M | $60.7B | $690M | $5.6B | $1.1B | $280.3B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $24M | $16.5B | -$19M | $733M | $57M | $81.4B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$2M | $12.0B | -$40M | $438M | $34M | $57.0B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $23M | $12.6B | -$11M | $833M | $109M | $100.9B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +34.4% | +64.3% | +37.5% | +43.0% | +57.1% | +60.0% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.0% | +23.4% | -4.4% | +11.2% | +3.8% | +25.9% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -0.7% | +19.7% | -5.8% | +7.9% | +3.2% | +20.4% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +6.8% | +20.8% | -1.6% | +15.0% | +10.3% | +36.0% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.1% | +12.0% | -2.0% | +39.5% | +27.1% | — | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -48.0% | +37.1% | -123.8% | +23.1% | +3.3% | +16.0% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CRNT and JPM each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.2x trailing earnings, JPM trades at a 97% valuation discount to CIEN's 503.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.92x vs KO's 2.34x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $243M | $471.2B | $630M | $60.6B | $2.5B | $908.6B | $341.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $254M | $490.9B | $471M | $61.1B | $2.3B | $1.51T | $376.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -115.88x | 46.88x | -20.22x | 503.79x | 145.96x | 16.22x | 26.12x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 20.15x | 27.96x | 115.25x | 65.60x | 21.35x | 14.60x | 24.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — | 0.92x | 2.34x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.01x | 33.57x | — | 135.45x | 60.32x | 18.52x | 25.45x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.72x | 8.32x | 0.91x | 12.71x | 2.45x | 3.25x | 7.13x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.40x | 10.20x | 1.34x | 22.79x | 3.11x | 2.51x | 9.99x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 13.52x | 35.46x | — | 91.11x | 21.23x | 9.01x | 64.52x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-8 for NTGR. CALX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CSCO scores 8/9 vs CRNT's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -1.4% | +25.1% | -8.0% | +15.7% | +4.2% | +15.9% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.8% | +9.7% | -4.9% | +7.4% | +3.5% | +1.3% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.7% | +13.0% | -8.4% | +6.9% | +2.1% | +4.5% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.7% | +13.7% | -6.0% | +6.8% | +2.5% | +8.9% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.29x | 0.60x | 0.10x | 0.58x | 0.03x | 2.60x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $11M | $19.7B | -$159M | $490M | -$118M | $599.0B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $38M | $8.3B | $210M | $1.1B | $143M | $343.3B | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $50M | $28.1B | $51M | $1.6B | $26M | $942.4B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.65x | 10.61x | — | 6.29x | — | 0.74x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CIEN leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CIEN five years ago would be worth $76,264 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,034 for NTGR. Over the past 12 months, CIEN leads with a +480.1% total return vs CALX's -19.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CIEN at 115.1% vs CALX's -9.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +23.3% | +58.3% | -5.1% | +74.0% | -29.2% | +0.8% | +16.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +17.9% | +84.1% | -13.7% | +480.1% | -19.5% | +20.9% | +17.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +31.1% | +141.3% | +57.7% | +894.7% | -24.7% | +138.8% | +39.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -28.6% | +144.7% | -39.7% | +662.6% | -10.9% | +135.5% | +65.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +60.7% | +364.8% | -51.4% | +1974.7% | +438.3% | +481.2% | +115.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +9.4% | +34.1% | +16.4% | +115.1% | -9.0% | +33.7% | +11.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — JPM and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.23 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CIEN's 2.60 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. JPM currently trades 96.2% from its 52-week high vs CALX's 53.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.03x | 1.02x | 1.52x | 2.61x | 0.94x | 0.87x | -0.24x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.29 | $130.37 | $36.86 | $637.03 | $71.22 | $338.09 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.82 | $65.38 | $19.00 | $73.23 | $35.87 | $269.72 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +82.1% | +91.7% | +62.5% | +67.2% | +53.3% | +96.2% | +94.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.5 | 52.7 | 36.5 | 37.5 | 34.9 | 72.1 | 49.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 636K | 22.3M | 410K | 2.6M | 913K | 7.4M | 13.6M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CRNT as "Buy", CSCO as "Buy", NTGR as "Hold", CIEN as "Buy", CALX as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 60.7% upside for CALX (target: $61) vs 3.1% for CSCO (target: $123). For income investors, KO offers the higher dividend yield at 2.56% vs CSCO's 1.35%.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $4.25 | $123.30 | $36.00 | $493.42 | $61.00 | $339.75 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 73 | 17 | 42 | 21 | 61 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.3% | — | — | — | +1.8% | +2.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 15 | — | 0 | 1 | 15 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.61 | — | — | — | $5.95 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.5% | +8.0% | +0.6% | +3.8% | +3.8% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Analyst Outlook). CIEN leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
CRNT vs CSCO vs NTGR vs CIEN vs CALX vs JPM vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Calix, Inc.
(CALX) is the stronger pick with 20. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 1% for Ceragon Networks Ltd. (CRNT). JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) offers the better valuation at 16. 2x trailing P/E (14. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ceragon Networks Ltd. (CRNT) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 — CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO?
On trailing P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the cheapest at 16. 2x versus Ciena Corporation at 503. 8x. On forward P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co. is actually cheaper at 14. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 83x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO?
Over the past 5 years, Ciena Corporation (CIEN) delivered a total return of +662.
6%, compared to -39. 7% for NETGEAR, Inc. (NTGR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CIEN returned +1975% versus NTGR's -51. 4%. 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 — CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
24β versus Ciena Corporation's 2. 61β — meaning CIEN is approximately -1202% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Calix, Inc. (CALX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Calix, Inc.
(CALX) is pulling ahead at 20. 3% versus -14. 1% for Ceragon Networks Ltd. (CRNT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Calix, Inc. grew EPS 157. 8% year-over-year, compared to -371. 4% for NETGEAR, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CIEN leads at 9. 5% 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 — CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -4. 7% for NETGEAR, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -5. 1% for NTGR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CSCO leads at 64. 9%, 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 CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO 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, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 83x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) trades at 14. 6x forward P/E versus 115. 3x for NETGEAR, Inc. — 100. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CALX: 60. 7% to $61. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO?
In this comparison, KO (2.
6% yield), JPM (1. 8% yield), CSCO (1. 3% yield) pay a dividend. CRNT, NTGR, CIEN, CALX do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CRNT or CSCO or NTGR or CIEN or CALX or JPM or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
24), 2. 6% yield, +115. 0% 10Y return). Ceragon Networks Ltd. (CRNT) carries a higher beta of 2. 03 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +115. 0%, CRNT: +60. 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 CRNT and CSCO and NTGR and CIEN and CALX and JPM and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (CRNT (Technology) and CSCO (Technology) and NTGR (Technology) and CIEN (Technology) and CALX (Technology) and JPM (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CRNT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CSCO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; NTGR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CIEN is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CALX is a small-cap high-growth stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. CSCO, JPM, KO pay a dividend while CRNT, NTGR, CIEN, CALX 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.