AAPL vs ZBH Stock Comparison
ZBH currently leads AAPL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 62. The clearest difference is value, while AAPL has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and ZBH?
ZBH leads the current stock comparison as Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
ZBH leads
ZBH leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from AAPL.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ZBH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZBH over AAPL, 65 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. ZBH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while AAPL holds the stronger quality profile. ZBH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZBH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. ZBH lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZBH now leads by 3.
Compare Apple Inc. and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AAPL and ZBH against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value38 vs 66ZBH +28
- Quality80 vs 57AAPL +23
- Momentum65 vs 80ZBH +15
- Risk Resilience69 vs 55AAPL +14
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ZBH. ZBH’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; AAPL keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZBH's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and ZBH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZBH (Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
ZBHZBH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AAPLAAPL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZBHZBH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
ZBHZBH on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
ZBHZBH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AAPL | ZBH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +10.4% | ZBH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AAPL | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.99% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.808 | $0.960 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.030 | $0.960 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #254 | #349 |
AAPL grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.99% a year against ZBH's 0.00%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZBH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.6% vs 4.3%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 6.4%; gross margin 48.7% vs 69.9%; operating margin 33.2% vs 15.7% |
| Valuation | ZBH | Value 38 vs 66 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 16.3% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 69 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | ZBH | Target upside -1.7% vs 10.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and ZBH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on ZBH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30ZBH lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZBH now leads by 3.
- Today
- ZBH +3
- 62 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 65 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +8
- 60 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +2
- 65 vs 63
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when ZBH moved ahead of AAPL.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ZBH
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
ZBH leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.03%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AAPL closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBH's edge.
- 2AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ZBH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | AAPL | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | -15.6% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 69.9% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 15.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.59 |
Performance
AAPL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.3% | 14.2% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.8% | -6.4% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 73.3 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.3% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 28.4% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | 0.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -22.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -6.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or ZBH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZBH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against AAPL's 62. The edge comes from value and momentum. AAPL is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AAPL or ZBH the better buy right now?
ZBH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZBH over AAPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZBH leads Value by 28 points; AAPL leads Quality by 23 points; ZBH leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or ZBH?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and +10.4% for ZBH, so the Street currently favors ZBH. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AAPL or ZBH?
ZBH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AAPL or ZBH?
AAPL on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AAPL or ZBH?
ZBH on the Momentum factor, by 15 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AAPL or ZBH?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 14 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAPL more profitable than ZBH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 69.9%; operating margin 33.2% vs 15.7%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 6.4%. AAPL leads on two measures and ZBH on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is ZBH's lead over AAPL getting stronger or weaker?
ZBH lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZBH now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when ZBH moved ahead of AAPL.
What would change the AAPL vs ZBH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AAPL closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBH's edge; AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ZBH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and ZBH?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZBH: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZBH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and ZBH with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.