ADP vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
Compare ADP and ZBRA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ADP and ZBRA?
ADP leads the current stock comparison as Automatic Data Processing, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
ADP leads
ADP leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ADP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ADP over ZBRA, 59 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. ADP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ZBRA holds the stronger value profile. ADP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ADP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ADP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Automatic Data Processing, Inc. and Zebra Technologies Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ADP 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.
- Quality79 vs 54ADP +25
- Risk Resilience57 vs 41ADP +16
- Value58 vs 68ZBRA +10
- Momentum39 vs 36Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ADP. ADP’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ZBRA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
ADP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADP and ZBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ADP (Automatic Data Processing, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ZBRA (Zebra Technologies Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
ADPADP 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 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ADPADP on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ADP | ZBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.4% | -3.2% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +46.3% | +51.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ADP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ADP | 59 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ZBRAon balance | revenue growth -7.8% vs 4.1%; EPS growth -27.7% vs 72.8%; TTM ROE 70.2% vs 15.1%; gross margin 48.2% vs 48.9%; operating margin 18.6% vs 16.1% — ZBRA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZBRA | Value 58 vs 68 |
| Technicals | ZBRA | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs 9.4%; vs 200-day 12.7% vs 32.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ADP | Risk Resilience 57 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside -3.4% vs -3.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADP and ZBRA 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 ADP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ADP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ADP +7
- 59 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- ADP +14
- 67 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ADP +6
- 67 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ADP +9
- 71 vs 62
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.49%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.65%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ADP 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.35%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.85%, AIQ -1 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 Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADP's edge.
- 2ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ADP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
ZBRA leads on balance| Metric | ADP | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.8% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.7% | 72.8% |
| Gross margin | 48.2% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 18.6% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 70.2% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.87 | 0.86 |
Performance
ZBRA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ADP | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.9% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.7% | 58.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.5% | 61% |
| Year to date | 3.9% | 41.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.4% | 9.6% |
Technicals
ZBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | ADP | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.4 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 30.8 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | 9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.7% | 32.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.5% | 26.7% |
Risk
ADP is the more resilient| Metric | ADP | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.01 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.4 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.64 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -36.6% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -10.3% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.4% | 49.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADP or ZBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ADP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against ZBRA's 52. The edge comes from quality 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 ADP or ZBRA the better buy right now?
ADP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ADP over ZBRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ADP leads Quality by 25 points; ADP leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; ZBRA leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADP or ZBRA?
Analyst price targets imply -3.4% upside for ADP and -3.2% for ZBRA. 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, ADP or ZBRA?
ZBRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, ADP 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, ADP or ZBRA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ADP or ZBRA?
ADP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ADP on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 ADP more profitable than ZBRA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.2% vs 48.9%; operating margin 18.6% vs 16.1%; ttm roe 70.2% vs 15.1%. ADP leads on two measures and ZBRA 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 ADP's lead over ZBRA getting stronger or weaker?
ADP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ADP vs ZBRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZBRA closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADP's edge; ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ADP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 ADP and ZBRA?
ADP: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZBRA: 3 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 ADP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ADP 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.