AAPL vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads ZBRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 45. The clearest difference is momentum, while ZBRA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and ZBRA?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ZBRA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over ZBRA, 59 versus 45 as of Nov 7, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while ZBRA holds the stronger value profile. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ZBRA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Zebra Technologies Corporation 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 ZBRA 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.
- Momentum59 vs 15AAPL +44
- Value37 vs 68ZBRA +31
- Risk Resilience61 vs 31AAPL +30
- Quality80 vs 54AAPL +26
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; ZBRA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
AAPL's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and ZBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
ZBRA (Zebra Technologies Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 40.3% against 25.9%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZBRAZBRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZBRAZBRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
ZBRAZBRA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AAPL, analyst targets favor ZBRA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | ZBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.5% | +10.9% | ZBRA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46% | +38.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 59 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs 4.1%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 15.1%; gross margin 48.7% vs 48.9%; operating margin 33.2% vs 16.1% — AAPL takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZBRA | Value 37 vs 68 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 1.9% vs -11.7%; vs 200-day 14.6% vs 14.1% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 61 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | ZBRA | Target upside -1.5% vs 10.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and ZBRA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +14
- 59 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +13
- 62 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +1
- 61 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +11
- 64 vs 53
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when AAPL moved ahead of ZBRA.
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
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ZBRA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.58%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
AAPL 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 -0.52%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.12%, 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.
- 1ZBRA closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2ZBRA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3AAPL'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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 72.8% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.86 |
Performance
AAPL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -10.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.7% | -16.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.1% | -14.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.7% | 42.5% |
| Year to date | 25.9% | 32.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.7% | 20.9% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.6 | 23.5 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 32.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.9% | -11.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.6% | 14.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.9% | 40.3% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.59 | 1.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.93 | 0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.3 | 1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -27.3% |
| Current drawdown | -2% | -17.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.9% | 47.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or ZBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 59 against ZBRA's 45. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. ZBRA is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ZBRA the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over ZBRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Momentum by 44 points; ZBRA leads Value by 31 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 30 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or ZBRA?
Analyst price targets imply -1.5% upside for AAPL and +10.9% for ZBRA, so the Street currently favors ZBRA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AAPL. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AAPL or ZBRA?
ZBRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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 ZBRA?
ZBRA 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 ZBRA?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 44 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 ZBRA?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 ZBRA?
AAPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.7% vs 48.9%; operating margin 33.2% vs 16.1%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 15.1%.
Is AAPL's lead over ZBRA getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when AAPL moved ahead of ZBRA.
What would change the AAPL vs ZBRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZBRA closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; ZBRA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; AAPL'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 ZBRA?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZBRA: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 ZBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and ZBRA 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.