AAPL vs ZS Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads ZS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between AAPL and ZS?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over ZS, 63 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. AAPL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 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 12 to 15 points over 30 sessions. AAPL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Apple Inc. and Zscaler, 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 ZS 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.
- Quality80 vs 48AAPL +32
- Risk Resilience68 vs 48AAPL +20
- Momentum70 vs 65AAPL +5
- Value38 vs 34AAPL +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and ZS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 61.1% against 16.4%.
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
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AAPLAAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
AAPLAAPL 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 | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.3% | -9.4% | AAPL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.6% | +73% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 30 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 | 63 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.6% vs 4.3%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs -3.7%; gross margin 48.7% vs 76.7%; operating margin 33.2% vs -4.7% |
| Valuation | AAPL | Value 38 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 19.5%; vs 200-day 15.8% vs 29.4% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | AAPL | Target upside -3.3% vs -9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and ZS 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 15 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +15
- 63 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +8
- 61 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +12
- 63 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- ZS +3
- 51 vs 54
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when AAPL moved ahead of ZS.
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 (1.5%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ZS
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.93%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.84%, 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.
- 1ZS closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
Split| Metric | AAPL | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.79 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AAPL | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | 50.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.6% | 53.6% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 37.2% | -28.3% |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.5 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 19.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.8% | 29.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 61.1% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.6 | -0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.1% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.4% | 66.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or ZS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 63 against ZS's 48. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 ZS the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 ZS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Quality by 32 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; AAPL leads Momentum by 5 points. AAPL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ZS simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply -3.3% upside for AAPL and -9.4% for ZS, so the Street currently favors AAPL. 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 ZS?
AAPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 ZS?
ZS 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 ZS?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 ZS?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 76.7%; operating margin 33.2% vs -4.7%; ttm roe 137.2% vs -3.7%. AAPL leads on two measures and ZS 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 AAPL's lead over ZS getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when AAPL moved ahead of ZS.
What would change the AAPL vs ZS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZS closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 ZS?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZS: 3 bullish / 1 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 ZS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and ZS 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.