ANET vs ZS Stock Comparison
Compare ANET vs ZS on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between ANET and ZS?
ANET and ZS are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arista Networks, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
ANET and ZS are effectively level
ANET and ZS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Arista Networks, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate ANET and ZS as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Arista Networks, Inc. and Zscaler, 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 ANET 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.
- Momentum22 vs 65ZS +43
- Quality89 vs 48ANET +41
- Value26 vs 34ZS +8
- Risk Resilience53 vs 48ANET +5
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 -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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ANET and ZS both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZSZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
ZSZS on the Momentum factor, by 43 points.
Lower downside
ANETANET on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.3% | -9.4% | ANET has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.8% | +73% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 30 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 48 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | ANETon balance | revenue growth 12.1% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 18.5% vs 57.1%; TTM ROE 30.8% vs -3.7%; gross margin 63% vs 76.7%; operating margin 43.1% vs -4.7% — ANET takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZS | Value 26 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day -7% vs 19.5%; vs 200-day 11.1% vs 29.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ANET | Risk Resilience 53 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | ANET | Target upside 17.3% vs -9.4% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ANET lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- ZS +4
- 49 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ANET +10
- 61 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- ANET +8
- 62 vs 54
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when ZS moved ahead of ANET.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ANET
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ZS
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +1.73%, AIQ 0 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).
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 | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.1% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.5% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 63% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | 43.1% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.8% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.79 |
Performance
ZS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ANET | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.4% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.7% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.6% | 50.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.8% | 53.6% |
| Year to date | 38.3% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.4% | -28.3% |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | ANET | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.3 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.6 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7% | 19.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.1% | 29.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.5% | 61.1% |
Risk
ANET is the more resilient| Metric | ANET | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.18 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.64 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.98 | -0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -28.3% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -16.4% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.7% | 66.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, ANET or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply +17.3% upside for ANET and -9.4% for ZS, so the Street currently favors ANET. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ANET or ZS?
ZS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 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, ANET or ZS?
ZS on the Momentum factor, by 43 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 ZS?
ANET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANET on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63% vs 76.7%; operating margin 43.1% vs -4.7%; ttm roe 30.8% vs -3.7%. ANET 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.
What do the current signals say about ANET and ZS?
ANET: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 ANET is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ANET 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.