NetApp vs Palo Alto Networks
NTAP and PANW side by side, both in computer and office equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NTAP and PANW compare
Palo Alto Networks is the larger company, worth 7.4 times as much as NetApp ($264B against $35.6B).
Palo Alto Networks grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.5% versus 12.7% for NetApp).
NetApp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.8% compared with 2.7% at Palo Alto Networks.
NetApp pays a dividend yielding 1.1%; Palo Alto Networks does not pay one.
NetApp scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 8 for Palo Alto Networks), 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 | NTAP | PANW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $35.6B | $264B |
| Share price | $181.37 | $322.24 |
| Change, 1 year | 62.6% | 53.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 111% | 265% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.23 | 1.27 |
| Employees | 12K | 8,014 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.5× | – |
| P/S | 5.5× (better) | 23.0× |
| P/B | 23.8× | 9.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.2× (better) | 168× |
| P/FCF | 21.6× (better) | 64.1× |
| PEG | 8.17 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.6% (better) | 1.6% |
| Fair value | $150.67 | $53.83 |
| Margin of safety | −20.4% (better) | −499% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.7% | 24.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.7% | 22.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% (better) | −72.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 25.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 80.3% (better) | 70.4% |
| Operating margin | 28.5% (better) | 6.1% |
| Net margin | 21.8% (better) | 2.7% |
| FCF margin | 25.4% | 35.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 115% (better) | 1.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 528% (better) | 2.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.66 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.54 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.24 (better) | 0.87 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.56 | 7.88 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | – |
| Payout ratio | 29.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% (better) | 0.38% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.5% (better) | 0.38% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.0% | 81.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.44% | 0.67% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$46.4M (better) | −$117M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.4% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- NTAP stock overview
- NTAP income statement
- NTAP valuation and score
- PANW stock overview
- PANW income statement
- PANW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.