Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: CI stock price vs ZS: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at ZS's multiple
Needs ZS P/E.
Implied fair value · at CI's multiple
Needs Annual EPS is negative, CI P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Nine period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
The Cigna Group · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
Zscaler Inc · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC
CI vs UNH
CVS HEALTH Corp
CI vs CVS
HUMANA INC
CI vs HUM
CENTENE CORP
CI vs CNC
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES INC
CI vs WST
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC
CI vs BAX
Palo Alto Networks Inc
CI vs PANW
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
CI vs CRWD
Okta, Inc.
CI vs OKTA
Cloudflare, Inc.
CI vs NET
Fortinet, Inc.
CI vs FTNT
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe ZS can sustain very high growth and eventually convert that growth into durable profits, then CI should not be re-rated toward ZS's multiples because the current 3,130.8% implied upside is mechanically inflated by ZS's rich valuation; if you prefer earnings and cash-generation today, CI is the better relative-value choice.
The P/S-based implied price of $9,297.30 for CI versus the current $287.77 implies an extreme 3,130.8% upside, but this result is driven by using ZS's much richer revenue multiple, not by CI's own operating profile. On a relative basis, CI trades at 0.3x P/S and 13.0x P/E versus ZS at 8.9x P/S and -545.7x P/E, showing CI is materially cheaper while ZS is priced for significantly higher growth.
Supporting Metrics
