API vs ZETA Stock Comparison
Compare API and ZETA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between API and ZETA?
ZETA leads the current stock comparison as Zeta Global Holdings Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Agora, Inc. vs Zeta Global Holdings Corp.
ZETA leads
ZETA leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZETA, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Agora, Inc.
Zeta Global Holdings Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZETA over API, 55 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. ZETA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while API holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ZETA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZETA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. ZETA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agora, Inc. and Zeta Global Holdings Corp. 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 API and ZETA 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.
- Momentum31 vs 71ZETA +40
- Risk Resilience59 vs 49API +10
- Value53 vs 47API +6
- Quality58 vs 54API +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZETA. ZETA’s edge is concentrated in momentum; API keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
ZETA's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — API and ZETA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZETA (Zeta Global Holdings Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
API (Agora, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, quality.
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
ZETAZETA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZETAZETA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
APIAPI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
ZETAZETA on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
APIAPI on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
ZETAZETA 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 | API | ZETA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -35.2% | -5.8% | ZETA has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +35.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 5 | 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 ZETA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZETA | 50 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | ZETAon balance | revenue growth 6.9% vs 11.7%; EPS growth 103.1% vs 161.6%; TTM ROE 2% vs -0.3%; gross margin 64.5% vs 61.3%; operating margin -4.3% vs 1.9% — ZETA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | API | Value 53 vs 47 |
| Technicals | ZETA | Price vs 50-day -2.5% vs 18.3%; vs 200-day -1.3% vs 50.6% |
| Risk Resilience | API | Risk Resilience 59 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | ZETA | Target upside -35.2% vs -5.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of API and ZETA 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)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ZETA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ZETA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZETA +5
- 50 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- API +1
- 56 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- ZETA +1
- 58 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- ZETA +2
- 55 vs 57
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when ZETA moved ahead of API.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.69%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.79%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (25.74%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
ZETA 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 up over the latest session (price +0.5%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.24%, 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.
- 1API closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZETA's edge.
- 2API's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ZETA'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
ZETA leads on balance| Metric | API | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.9% | 11.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 103.1% | 161.6% |
| Gross margin | 64.5% | 61.3% |
| Operating margin | -4.3% | 1.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2% | -0.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.18 | 0.21 |
Performance
ZETA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | API | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.2% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.8% | 7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.6% | 53.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.3% | 67.5% |
| Year to date | -0.7% | 50.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.8% | 64.6% |
Technicals
ZETA has the stronger structure| Metric | API | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.9 | 61.4 |
| ADX (14) | 14.2 | 36.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.5% | 18.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.3% | 50.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.1% | 52.5% |
Risk
API is the more resilient| Metric | API | ZETA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.99 | 2.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | 1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.67 | 1.87 |
| Max drawdown | -29% | -40.4% |
| Current drawdown | -23.2% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.9% | 67.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, API or ZETA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZETA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against API's 50. The edge comes from momentum. API is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 API or ZETA the better buy right now?
ZETA 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 AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZETA over API?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZETA leads Momentum by 40 points; API leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; API leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, API or ZETA?
Analyst price targets imply -35.2% upside for API and -5.8% for ZETA, so the Street currently favors ZETA. 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, API or ZETA?
API is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. API on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, API or ZETA?
ZETA 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, API or ZETA?
ZETA on the Momentum factor, by 40 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, API or ZETA?
API is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. API on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 API more profitable than ZETA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 64.5% vs 61.3%; operating margin -4.3% vs 1.9%; ttm roe 2% vs -0.3%. API leads on two measures and ZETA 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 ZETA's lead over API getting stronger or weaker?
ZETA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when ZETA moved ahead of API.
What would change the API vs ZETA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: API closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZETA's edge; API's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ZETA'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 API and ZETA?
API: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZETA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 API is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZETA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare API and ZETA 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.