Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: META stock price vs PANW: 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 PANW's multiple
Needs PANW P/E.
Implied fair value · at META's multiple
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth edge
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
Eight 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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
PALO ALTO NETWORKS, 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.
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.
Apple Inc.
META vs AAPL
AMAZON COM INC
META vs AMZN
NVIDIA CORP
META vs NVDA
Alphabet Inc.
META vs GOOGL
MICROSOFT CORP
META vs MSFT
Snap Inc
META vs SNAP
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
META vs CRWD
Zscaler, Inc.
META vs ZS
Okta, Inc.
META vs OKTA
CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD
META vs CHKP
Rapid7, Inc.
META vs RPD
Cisco Systems, Inc.
META vs CSCO
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
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 META can sustain its superior growth, margins, and ROIC while the low Piotroski F-Score does not signal a deterioration in fundamentals, then META remains attractive versus PANW on a relative multiple basis because it is materially cheaper on P/E, P/S, EV/EBITDA, and EV/Revenue.
The valuation screen shows a striking disconnect: META trades at 28.1x P/E versus PANW at 174.7x, while META also screens far cheaper on P/S, EV/EBITDA, and EV/Revenue. However, the provided implied price of $4,103.85 and 622.0% upside appears inconsistent with META's own valuation range and current trading level, so the raw output should be treated cautiously.
Supporting Metrics
