AKAM vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
Compare AKAM and ZBRA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AKAM and ZBRA?
ZBRA leads the current stock comparison as Zebra Technologies Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Akamai Technologies, Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
ZBRA leads
ZBRA leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AKAM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ZBRA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZBRA over AKAM, 52 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. ZBRA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. ZBRA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AKAM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZBRA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ZBRA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Akamai Technologies, 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 AKAM 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.
- Quality34 vs 54ZBRA +20
- Risk Resilience38 vs 41Even
- Momentum38 vs 36Even
- Value69 vs 68Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ZBRA. ZBRA’s edge is concentrated in quality.
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 -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
ZBRA's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AKAM and ZBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZBRA (Zebra Technologies Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
AKAM (Akamai Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 42.6% against 26.7%.
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
ZBRAZBRA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZBRAZBRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ZBRAZBRA carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
AKAMAKAM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ZBRA, analyst targets favor AKAM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AKAM | ZBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.2% | -3.2% | AKAM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.2% | +51.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 6 | 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 ZBRA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZBRA | 46 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ZBRAon balance | revenue growth 2.4% vs 4.1%; EPS growth -24.7% vs 72.8%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 15.1%; gross margin 56.4% vs 48.9%; operating margin 11.8% vs 16.1% — ZBRA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 69 vs 68 |
| Technicals | ZBRA | Price vs 50-day -7.6% vs 9.4%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs 32.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 38 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | AKAM | Target upside 49.2% vs -3.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AKAM 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 ZBRA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ZBRA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZBRA +6
- 46 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- ZBRA +11
- 42 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBRA +13
- 48 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBRA +19
- 43 vs 62
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 15 when ZBRA moved ahead of AKAM.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.13%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.68%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short 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
ZBRA 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.32%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1AKAM closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBRA's edge.
- 2AKAM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ZBRA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate ZBRA's advantage entirely.
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 | AKAM | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -24.7% | 72.8% |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 0.86 |
Performance
ZBRA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AKAM | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.9% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.7% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | 58.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | 61% |
| Year to date | 22.8% | 41.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35.8% | 9.6% |
Technicals
ZBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | AKAM | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.2 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 28.8 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.6% | 9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | 32.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.6% | 26.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AKAM | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.18 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -34.8% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -33.5% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.9% | 49.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AKAM or ZBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZBRA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against AKAM's 46. The edge comes from quality. 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 AKAM or ZBRA the better buy right now?
ZBRA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZBRA over AKAM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZBRA leads Quality by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AKAM or ZBRA?
Analyst price targets imply +49.2% upside for AKAM and -3.2% for ZBRA, so the Street currently favors AKAM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ZBRA. 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, AKAM or ZBRA?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, AKAM 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, AKAM 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, AKAM or ZBRA?
ZBRA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZBRA carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AKAM more profitable than ZBRA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.4% vs 48.9%; operating margin 11.8% vs 16.1%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 15.1%. AKAM leads on one measure and ZBRA on two measures, 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 ZBRA's lead over AKAM getting stronger or weaker?
ZBRA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-15, when ZBRA moved ahead of AKAM.
What would change the AKAM vs ZBRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AKAM closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBRA's edge; AKAM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ZBRA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate ZBRA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AKAM and ZBRA?
AKAM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 AKAM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AKAM 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.