StoxZen Technologies vs Gallantt Ispat: share price & financials comparison
NSE: ZENTEC vs GALLANTT · Capital Goods · as of 13 Nov 2026
Both prices rebased to 100 at the start of the selected period.
Zen Technologies vs Gallantt Ispat at a glance
Zen Technologies (ZENTEC) has a market capitalisation of ₹15,744 Cr, against ₹12,666 Cr for Gallantt Ispat (GALLANTT). Over the past year Zen Technologies has returned +23.9%, compared with -6.1% for Gallantt Ispat. On valuation, Gallantt Ispat trades at a lower P/E of 41.3 versus 72.9. Zen Technologies earns a higher return on equity (10.9% vs 8.8%). Zen Technologies comes out ahead on profitability, growth, financial health, momentum and technicals. Gallantt Ispat comes out ahead on size and valuation. Across the scored metrics below, Zen Technologies leads on 13 and Gallantt Ispat on 4. On StoxGud's 10-point checklist, Zen Technologies scores 7/10 and Gallantt Ispat scores 4/10.
| Metric | Zen Technologies | Gallantt Ispat |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | ₹15,744 Cr | ₹12,666 Cr |
| Revenue (latest FY) | ₹688 Cr | ₹4,419 Cr |
| Net profit (latest FY) | ₹193 Cr | ₹484 Cr |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 72.9 | 41.3 |
| P/B | 7.92 | 3.63 |
| Dividend yield | 0.11% | 0.07% |
| Profitability | ||
| Return on equity | 10.9% | 8.8% |
| Net profit margin | 25.6% | 6.7% |
| Operating margin | 34.2% | 13.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (YoY) | +98.8% | +13.1% |
| Net profit growth (YoY) | +51.2% | — |
| Revenue CAGR (multi-year) | +65.9% | +31.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt to equity | 0.00 | 0.17 |
| Momentum | ||
| 1-month return | +5.5% | -10.7% |
| 1-year return | +23.9% | -6.1% |
| 3-year CAGR | +33.0% | +75.4% |
| 5-year CAGR | +52.4% | +49.4% |
| 10-year CAGR | +40.0% | +30.8% |
| Distance from 52W high | -12.7% | -43.4% |
| Technicals | ||
| RSI (14) | 81 | 45 |
| Price vs 200-day avg | +7.4% | -15.2% |
Highlighted cells lead on that metric. Market cap, revenue and RSI are shown for context and not scored.
10-point checklist side by side
| Check | Zen Technologies | Gallantt Ispat |
|---|---|---|
| Price above 50-day average | ✓ | ✗ |
| Price above 200-day average | ✓ | ✗ |
| 50-day average above 200-day (uptrend) | ✓ | ✗ |
| RSI in healthy 40–70 zone | ✗ | ✓ |
| Positive 1-year return | ✓ | ✗ |
| Return on equity above 15% | ✗ | ✗ |
| Debt to equity below 1 | ✓ | ✓ |
| Revenue growing year on year | ✓ | ✓ |
| Net profit margin above 10% | ✓ | ✗ |
| P/E below industry median | ✗ | ✓ |
| Score | 7/10 | 4/10 |
A rules-based screen for education only — not a buy or sell recommendation.
FAQs
Which is bigger, Zen Technologies or Gallantt Ispat?
Zen Technologies has a market cap of ₹15,744 Cr and Gallantt Ispat has a market cap of ₹12,666 Cr as of 13 Nov 2026.
Which has a lower P/E, Zen Technologies or Gallantt Ispat?
Gallantt Ispat has the lower P/E: Zen Technologies trades at 72.9 and Gallantt Ispat at 41.3.
Which gave better returns in the last year, Zen Technologies or Gallantt Ispat?
Zen Technologies did better: Zen Technologies returned +23.9% and Gallantt Ispat returned -6.1% over one year.
What is the difference between Zen Technologies and Gallantt Ispat?
Both are NSE-listed companies in Capital Goods. Zen Technologies is about 1.2 times the size of Gallantt Ispat by market cap. In the latest financial year Zen Technologies reported revenue of ₹688 Cr and Gallantt Ispat ₹4,419 Cr. Operating margin is 34.2% for Zen Technologies and 13.8% for Gallantt Ispat. Debt to equity is 0.00 for Zen Technologies and 0.17 for Gallantt Ispat.
Which is better, Zen Technologies or Gallantt Ispat?
It depends on what you are looking for, and StoxGud does not recommend either stock. On the metrics compared above, Zen Technologies leads on 13 and Gallantt Ispat on 4. Zen Technologies is ahead on profitability, growth, financial health, momentum and technicals. Gallantt Ispat is ahead on size and valuation. On StoxGud's rules-based checklist Zen Technologies scores 7/10 and Gallantt Ispat scores 4/10. This is information, not advice: consult a SEBI-registered adviser before investing.