NetApp holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Cisco Systems still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Cisco Systems carries the stronger setup — intact trend against NetApp's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with NetApp, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest score difference appears in profitability, while growth still leans the other way. The overall score gap is 10 points in favour of NetApp, Inc..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The strongest overlap appears in operating margin level and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Cisco Systems, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 124-point ROIC advantage.
There is still a strong counterforce in growth, so the lead stays clear without becoming a sweep.
Profitability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the CSCO vs NTAP comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CSCO and NTAP each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.