CrowdStrike vs Gen Digital
CRWD and GEN side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CRWD and GEN compare
CrowdStrike is the larger company, worth 15 times as much as Gen Digital ($256B against $17.4B).
On earnings, Gen Digital is cheaper: it trades at 14.6× trailing earnings, against 4007× for CrowdStrike.
CrowdStrike grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.3% versus 16.9% for Gen Digital).
Gen Digital keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.1% compared with 1.1% at CrowdStrike.
Gen Digital pays a dividend yielding 1.7%; CrowdStrike does not pay one.
Gen Digital scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 12 for CrowdStrike), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CRWD | GEN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $256B | $17.4B |
| Share price | $250.43 | $29.13 |
| Change, 1 year | 83.6% | 12.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 266% | 17.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.69 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 11K | 3,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 4007× | 14.6× (better) |
| P/S | 47.5× | 3.3× (better) |
| P/B | 50.3× | 6.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 9.4× |
| P/FCF | 159× | 9.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 0.63% | 10.1% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $46.74 |
| Margin of safety | – | 37.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.3% (better) | 16.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 40.6% (better) | 14.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 112% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 116% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 11.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 75.2% | 77.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | −2.2% | 41.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.1% | 23.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 29.8% | 33.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 1.3% | 46.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −65.8% | 14.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.15 (better) | 2.96 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.88 |
| Interest coverage | −4.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.57 (better) | 0.37 |
| Altman Z-score | 22.87 (better) | 1.48 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.7% |
| Payout ratio | – | 25.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.4% | 92.4% |
| Held by insiders | 3.3% | 10.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$641M | −$21.7M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | – |
Go deeper
- CRWD stock overview
- CRWD income statement
- CRWD valuation and score
- GEN stock overview
- GEN income statement
- GEN valuation and score
Other comparisons
- CRWD vs NET
- CRWD vs OKTA
- CRWD vs OTEX
- CRWD vs PLTR
- CRWD vs S
- CRWD vs SNOW
- CRWD vs SSNC
- CRWD vs ZS
- GEN vs NET
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.