NetApp holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. Palo Alto Networks still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Valuation still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 17 points in favour of NetApp, Inc..
Both operate in: Software - Infrastructure
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. NTAP and PANW share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how NetApp and Palo Alto Networks each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
NetApp, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. look relatively close on structure, but the price setup still leans toward NetApp, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 25 turns lower.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
Valuation settles the comparison, while pricing and growth keep the broader setup from looking fully aligned.
Break down the NTAP vs PANW comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how NTAP and PANW 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.