BABA vs BZ Stock Comparison
Alibaba Group Holding Limited vs Kanzhun Limited
BZ leads
BZ leads by 25 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BABA on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BZ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited
Kanzhun Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BZ over BABA, 62 versus 37 as of Sep 5, 2026. BZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. BZ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BABA. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BZ today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. BZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 25 points over 30 sessions. BZ leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Alibaba Group Holding Limited and Kanzhun Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BABA and BZ 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.
- Momentum25%21 vs 69BZ +48
- Quality30%50 vs 83BZ +33
- Value30%32 vs 41BZ +9
- Risk Resilience15%47 vs 51BZ +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BZ. BZ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
BZ's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BABA and BZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BZ (Kanzhun Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BABA (Alibaba Group Holding Limited): the counter-case, on 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
BZBZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BZBZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BZBZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
BZBZ on the Momentum factor, by 48 points.
Lower downside
BZBZ on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
BABABABA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BZ, analyst targets favor BABA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BABA | BZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +62.1% | +0.5% | BABA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.7% | +47.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BZ | 37 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | BZ | revenue growth 10.2% vs 16.6%; EPS growth -59.1% vs 72.6%; TTM ROE 7% vs 22.8%; gross margin 38.1% vs 85.9%; operating margin 4.2% vs 32.8% |
| Valuation | BZ | Value 32 vs 41 |
| Technicals | BZ | Price vs 50-day -2.2% vs 8.9%; vs 200-day -17.6% vs 3.3% |
| Risk Resilience | BZ | Risk Resilience 47 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | BABA | Target upside 62.1% vs 0.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BABA and BZ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 25 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 BZ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3BZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 25 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BZ +25
- 37 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- BZ +22
- 41 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- BZ +14
- 50 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- BZ +18
- 38 vs 56
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.16%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.88%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.52%)
BZ 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 +1.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.48%, 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.
- 1BABA closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to BZ's edge.
- 2BABA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
BZ leads on balance| Metric | BABA | BZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.2% | 16.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -59.1% | 72.6% |
| Gross margin | 38.1% | 85.9% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 32.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7% | 22.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.25 | 0.01 |
Performance
BZ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BABA | BZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.9% | -6.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.8% | 4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.2% | 18.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.2% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | -23.7% | -17.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.1% | -29% |
Technicals
BZ has the stronger structure| Metric | BABA | BZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32 | 59.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 28.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.2% | 8.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.6% | 3.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.8% | 74.2% |
Risk
BZ is the more resilient| Metric | BABA | BZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.33 | -0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.59 | -1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -49.9% | -49.2% |
| Current drawdown | -41% | -32.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 44% | 40% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BABA or BZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BZ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against BABA's 37. The edge comes from momentum and 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 BABA or BZ the better buy right now?
BZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BZ over BABA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BZ leads Momentum by 48 points; BZ leads Quality by 33 points; BZ leads Value by 9 points. BZ leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by BABA simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, BABA or BZ?
Analyst price targets imply +62.1% upside for BABA and +0.5% for BZ, so the Street currently favors BABA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BZ. 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, BABA or BZ?
BZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, BABA or BZ?
BZ 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, BABA or BZ?
BZ on the Momentum factor, by 48 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, BABA or BZ?
BZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BZ on Risk Resilience, by 4 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BABA more profitable than BZ?
BZ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.1% vs 85.9%; operating margin 4.2% vs 32.8%; ttm roe 7% vs 22.8%.
Is BZ's lead over BABA getting stronger or weaker?
BZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 25 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BABA vs BZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BABA closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to BZ's edge; BABA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BABA and BZ?
BABA: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. BZ: 1 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 BABA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BZ it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BABA and BZ with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.