CrowdStrike vs Palantir Technologies
CRWD and PLTR 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 PLTR compare
Palantir Technologies is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as CrowdStrike ($442B against $256B).
On earnings, Palantir Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 157× trailing earnings, against 4007× for CrowdStrike.
Palantir Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (78.9% versus 24.3% for CrowdStrike).
Palantir Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 49.0% compared with 1.1% at CrowdStrike.
Palantir Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (14 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 | PLTR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $256B | $442B |
| Share price | $250.43 | $184.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 83.6% | −7.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 266% | 608% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.69 | 2.17 |
| Employees | 11K | 4,429 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 4007× | 157× (better) |
| P/S | 47.5× (better) | 71.9× |
| P/B | 50.3× | 45.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 163× |
| P/FCF | 159× | 132× (better) |
| FCF yield | 0.63% | 0.76% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $39.26 |
| Margin of safety | – | −369% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.3% | 78.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 40.6% (better) | 32.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 295% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 290% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 75.2% | 84.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | −2.2% | 42.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.1% | 49.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 29.8% | 54.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 1.3% | 38.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −65.8% | 1771% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.15 (better) | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | −4.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.57 | 7.23 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 22.87 | 150.05 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.4% | 60.3% |
| Held by insiders | 3.3% | 7.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$641M (better) | −$868M |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- CRWD stock overview
- CRWD income statement
- CRWD valuation and score
- PLTR stock overview
- PLTR income statement
- PLTR valuation and score
Other comparisons
- CRWD vs GEN
- CRWD vs NET
- CRWD vs OKTA
- CRWD vs OTEX
- CRWD vs S
- CRWD vs SNOW
- CRWD vs SSNC
- CRWD vs ZS
- CRWV vs PLTR
- DDOG vs PLTR
- OCTV vs PLTR
- PLTR vs SNOW
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.