CDNA vs ZTS Stock Comparison
ZTS currently leads CDNA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 58. The clearest difference is value, while CDNA has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CDNA and ZTS?
ZTS leads the current stock comparison as Zoetis Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CareDx, Inc vs Zoetis Inc.
ZTS leads
ZTS leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CDNA.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZTS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CareDx, Inc
Zoetis Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZTS over CDNA, 67 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZTS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CDNA holds the stronger quality profile. ZTS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZTS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. ZTS lead: Reversed — CDNA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZTS now leads by 9.
Compare CareDx, Inc and Zoetis 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 CDNA and ZTS 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.
- Value27 vs 62ZTS +35
- Risk Resilience39 vs 62ZTS +23
- Quality92 vs 70CDNA +22
- Momentum67 vs 74ZTS +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZTS. ZTS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; CDNA keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.3%)
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ZTS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CDNA and ZTS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZTS (Zoetis Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
CDNA (CareDx, Inc): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 68.9% against 25.7%.
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
ZTSZTS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CDNACDNA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZTSZTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
ZTSZTS on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
ZTSZTS on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
ZTSZTS 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 | CDNA | ZTS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -26.3% | +19% | ZTS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +88.3% | +59.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 7 | 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 ZTS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZTS | 58 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | CDNAon balance | revenue growth 12.1% vs 9.1%; EPS growth 42% vs 16.2%; TTM ROE 32.8% vs 69.3%; gross margin 70.6% vs 70.9% — CDNA takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZTS | Value 27 vs 62 |
| Technicals | CDNA | Price vs 50-day 26.8% vs 7.3%; vs 200-day 119.6% vs -16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ZTS | Risk Resilience 39 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | ZTS | Target upside -26.3% vs 19% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CDNA and ZTS 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 9 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 ZTS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZTS lead: Reversed — CDNA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZTS now leads by 9.
- Today
- ZTS +9
- 58 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- ZTS +10
- 58 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- CDNA +6
- 62 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- CDNA +6
- 62 vs 56
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when ZTS moved ahead of CDNA.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CDNA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (77.10%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.65%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.3%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ZTS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.53%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ZTS 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 +2.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.52%, 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.
- 1CDNA closes the Value gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge.
- 2CDNA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ZTS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
CDNA leads on balance| Metric | CDNA | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.1% | 9.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42% | 16.2% |
| Gross margin | 70.6% | 70.9% |
| Operating margin | -0.9% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32.8% | 69.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 2.93 |
Performance
CDNA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CDNA | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.8% | 7.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 22.5% | 9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 83.2% | 7.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 233.8% | -32.3% |
| Year to date | 255.9% | -36.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 361.6% | -44.1% |
Technicals
CDNA has the stronger structure| Metric | CDNA | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.7 | 81.8 |
| ADX (14) | 49.4 | 27 |
| Price vs 50-day | 26.8% | 7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 119.6% | -16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 68.9% | 25.7% |
Risk
ZTS is the more resilient| Metric | CDNA | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.44 | -1.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 5.89 | -1.45 |
| Max drawdown | -23.6% | -53% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | -45.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 73.2% | 38.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CDNA or ZTS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZTS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against CDNA's 58. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. CDNA is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CDNA or ZTS the better buy right now?
ZTS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 ZTS over CDNA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZTS leads Value by 35 points; ZTS leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; CDNA leads Quality by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CDNA or ZTS?
Analyst price targets imply -26.3% upside for CDNA and +19% for ZTS, so the Street currently favors ZTS. 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, CDNA or ZTS?
ZTS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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, CDNA or ZTS?
CDNA 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, CDNA or ZTS?
ZTS 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, CDNA or ZTS?
ZTS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZTS on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 CDNA more profitable than ZTS?
ZTS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 70.6% vs 70.9%; operating margin -0.9% vs 37%; ttm roe 32.8% vs 69.3%.
Is ZTS's lead over CDNA getting stronger or weaker?
ZTS lead: Reversed — CDNA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZTS now leads by 9. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when ZTS moved ahead of CDNA.
What would change the CDNA vs ZTS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CDNA closes the Value gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge; CDNA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ZTS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 CDNA and ZTS?
CDNA: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZTS: 2 bullish / 2 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 CDNA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZTS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CDNA and ZTS 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.