ADSK vs ZM Stock Comparison
ZM currently leads ADSK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 76 vs 71. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while ADSK has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ADSK and ZM?
ZM leads the current stock comparison as Zoom Communications, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Autodesk, Inc. vs Zoom Communications, Inc.
ZM leads
ZM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors ADSK on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ZM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Autodesk, Inc.
Zoom Communications, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZM over ADSK, 76 versus 71 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while ADSK holds the stronger momentum profile. ZM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ADSK. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. ZM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Autodesk, Inc. and Zoom Communications, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ADSK and ZM 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.
- Risk Resilience47 vs 70ZM +23
- Momentum88 vs 75ADSK +13
- Quality84 vs 92ZM +8
- Value57 vs 64ZM +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ZM. ZM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; ADSK keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADSK and ZM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZM (Zoom Communications, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
ADSK (Autodesk, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
ZMZM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZMZM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZMZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
ADSKADSK on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
ZMZM on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
ADSKADSK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ZM, analyst targets favor ADSK. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ADSK | ZM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23% | +17.9% | ADSK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +51.1% | +24.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 13 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZM | 71 vs 76 |
| Fundamentals | ADSK | revenue growth 5.8% vs 3.1%; TTM ROE 52.5% vs 32.3%; gross margin 91.2% vs 77.3%; operating margin 27.5% vs 23.7% |
| Valuation | ZM | Value 57 vs 64 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 5.1% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 4.4% vs 6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ZM | Risk Resilience 47 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | ADSK | Target upside 23% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADSK and ZM 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 ZM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZM +5
- 71 vs 76
- 7 sessions ago
- ZM +6
- 72 vs 78
- 30 sessions ago
- ZM +6
- 57 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- ZM +10
- 64 vs 74
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when ZM moved ahead of ADSK.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ADSK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.99%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ZM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.83%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.55%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
ADSK is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.3%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.03%, 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.
- 1ADSK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge.
- 2ADSK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ZM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
ADSK leads on balance| Metric | ADSK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 262.1% |
| Gross margin | 91.2% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 27.5% | 23.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 52.5% | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.1 | 0.01 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ADSK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.6% | -0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.8% | 7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.9% | 13.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | -17% | 12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.1% | 22.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ADSK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.4 | 63.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 11.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.1% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.4% | 6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 37.6% |
Risk
ZM is the more resilient| Metric | ADSK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.49 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.45 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.65 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -40% | -25.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -12.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.1% | 44.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADSK or ZM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 76 against ADSK's 71. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. ADSK is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ADSK or ZM the better buy right now?
ZM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZM over ADSK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZM leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; ADSK leads Momentum by 13 points; ZM leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADSK or ZM?
Analyst price targets imply +23% upside for ADSK and +17.9% for ZM, so the Street currently favors ADSK. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ZM. 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, ADSK or ZM?
ZM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, ADSK or ZM?
ZM 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, ADSK or ZM?
ADSK on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, ADSK or ZM?
ZM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZM on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 ADSK more profitable than ZM?
ADSK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 91.2% vs 77.3%; operating margin 27.5% vs 23.7%; ttm roe 52.5% vs 32.3%.
Is ZM's lead over ADSK getting stronger or weaker?
ZM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when ZM moved ahead of ADSK.
What would change the ADSK vs ZM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ADSK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge; ADSK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ZM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 ADSK and ZM?
ADSK: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. ZM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 ADSK is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ZM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ADSK and ZM 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.