BAX vs ZBH Stock Comparison
ZBH currently leads BAX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BAX and ZBH?
ZBH leads the current stock comparison as Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Baxter International Inc. vs Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
ZBH leads
ZBH leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ZBH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Baxter International Inc.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZBH over BAX, 65 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. ZBH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. ZBH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZBH today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ZBH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Baxter International Inc. and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BAX and ZBH 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.
- Quality20 vs 57ZBH +37
- Momentum73 vs 80ZBH +7
- Value69 vs 66Even
- Risk Resilience54 vs 55Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ZBH. ZBH’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZBH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAX and ZBH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZBH (Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BAX (Baxter International Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
ZBHZBH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BAXBAX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ZBHZBH on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
ZBHZBH carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ZBHZBH 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 | BAX | ZBH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +10.4% | ZBH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.1% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BAX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -11.45% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.955 | $0.960 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.520 | $0.960 |
| Years increased | 3 | 0 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #349 |
ZBH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 0.00% a year against BAX's -11.45%. ZBH never reduced its regular dividend in the window; BAX did in 2 years.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZBH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZBH | 53 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | ZBHon balance | revenue growth 9.6% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 9% vs -15.6%; TTM ROE -16.6% vs 6.4%; gross margin 30.1% vs 69.9%; operating margin -2.4% vs 15.7% — ZBH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 69 vs 66 |
| Technicals | BAX | Price vs 50-day -6.9% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 19.5% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 54 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | ZBH | Target upside 5% vs 10.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAX and ZBH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 ZBH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ZBH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZBH +12
- 53 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- ZBH +14
- 52 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBH +2
- 50 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBH +16
- 47 vs 63
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BAX
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ZBH
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ZBH 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.13%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.03%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1BAX closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBH's edge.
- 2BAX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ZBH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
ZBH leads on balance| Metric | BAX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.6% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9% | -15.6% |
| Gross margin | 30.1% | 69.9% |
| Operating margin | -2.4% | 15.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -16.6% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.56 | 0.59 |
Performance
BAX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BAX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.1% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.8% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 47.3% | 14.2% |
| Year to date | 33.2% | 7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.6% | -6.4% |
Technicals
BAX has the stronger structure| Metric | BAX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.7 | 73.3 |
| ADX (14) | 21.1 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.9% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.5% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30% | 28.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BAX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.13 | 0.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.38 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.49 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -22.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.2% | -6.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.3% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAX or ZBH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZBH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against BAX's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 BAX or ZBH the better buy right now?
ZBH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZBH over BAX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZBH leads Quality by 37 points; ZBH leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAX or ZBH?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for BAX and +10.4% for ZBH, so the Street currently favors ZBH. 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, BAX or ZBH?
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, BAX or ZBH?
BAX 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, BAX or ZBH?
ZBH on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, BAX or ZBH?
ZBH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZBH 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 BAX more profitable than ZBH?
ZBH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 30.1% vs 69.9%; operating margin -2.4% vs 15.7%; ttm roe -16.6% vs 6.4%.
Is ZBH's lead over BAX getting stronger or weaker?
ZBH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BAX vs ZBH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAX closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBH's edge; BAX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ZBH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 BAX and ZBH?
BAX: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ZBH: 4 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 BAX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZBH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAX and ZBH 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.