ANET vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
Compare ANET and ZBRA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ANET and ZBRA?
ANET leads the current stock comparison as Arista Networks, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arista Networks, Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
ANET leads
ANET leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ZBRA.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ANET, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Arista Networks, Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ANET over ZBRA, 58 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. ANET's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while ZBRA holds the stronger value profile. ANET also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ANET today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. ANET lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ANET now leads by 6.
Compare Arista Networks, 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 ANET 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.
- Value26 vs 68ZBRA +42
- Quality89 vs 54ANET +35
- Momentum62 vs 36ANET +26
- Risk Resilience55 vs 41ANET +14
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ANET. ANET’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; 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: Risk Resilience +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
ANET's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ANET and ZBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ANET (Arista Networks, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ZBRA (Zebra Technologies Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
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
ANETANET 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 42 points.
Momentum
ANETANET on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
ANETANET on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
ANETANET 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 | ANET | ZBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.5% | -3.2% | ANET has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.3% | +51.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 6 | 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 ANET. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ANET | 58 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ANETon balance | revenue growth 12.1% vs 4.1%; EPS growth 18.5% vs 72.8%; TTM ROE 30.8% vs 15.1%; gross margin 63% vs 48.9%; operating margin 43.1% vs 16.1% — ANET takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZBRA | Value 26 vs 68 |
| Technicals | ZBRA | Price vs 50-day 8.1% vs 9.4%; vs 200-day 23.5% vs 32.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ANET | Risk Resilience 55 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | ANET | Target upside 7.5% vs -3.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ANET 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.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 ANET.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ANET lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ANET now leads by 6.
- Today
- ANET +6
- 58 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- ANET +2
- 55 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBRA +2
- 59 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBRA +5
- 57 vs 62
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when ANET 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.69%)
- 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
ANET 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 +5.61%, AIQ 0 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 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge.
- 2ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ANET'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
ANET leads on balance| Metric | ANET | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.1% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.5% | 72.8% |
| Gross margin | 63% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 43.1% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.8% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.86 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ANET | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.2% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24.5% | 58.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.7% | 61% |
| Year to date | 44.2% | 41.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35% | 9.6% |
Technicals
ZBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | ANET | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.1 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.8 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.1% | 9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 23.5% | 32.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.1% | 26.7% |
Risk
ANET is the more resilient| Metric | ANET | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.06 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.12 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -28.3% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -10.2% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.9% | 49.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ANET or ZBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ANET is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against ZBRA's 52. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 ANET or ZBRA the better buy right now?
ANET carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ANET over ZBRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZBRA leads Value by 42 points; ANET leads Quality by 35 points; ANET leads Momentum by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ANET or ZBRA?
Analyst price targets imply +7.5% upside for ANET and -3.2% for ZBRA, so the Street currently favors ANET. 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, ANET or ZBRA?
ZBRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 42 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, ANET 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, ANET or ZBRA?
ANET on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, ANET or ZBRA?
ANET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANET on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 ANET more profitable than ZBRA?
ANET leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63% vs 48.9%; operating margin 43.1% vs 16.1%; ttm roe 30.8% vs 15.1%.
Is ANET's lead over ZBRA getting stronger or weaker?
ANET lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ANET now leads by 6. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when ANET moved ahead of ZBRA.
What would change the ANET 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 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge; ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ANET'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 ANET and ZBRA?
ANET: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 ANET is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ANET 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.