CLVT vs ZTS Stock Comparison
ZTS currently leads CLVT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 53. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CLVT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CLVT and ZTS?
ZTS leads the current stock comparison as Zoetis Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Clarivate Plc vs Zoetis Inc.
ZTS leads
ZTS leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CLVT on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZTS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Clarivate Plc
Zoetis Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZTS over CLVT, 67 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZTS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while CLVT holds the stronger value profile. ZTS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CLVT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZTS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ZTS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Clarivate Plc 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 CLVT 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.
- Risk Resilience31 vs 62ZTS +31
- Momentum49 vs 74ZTS +25
- Quality46 vs 70ZTS +24
- Value75 vs 62CLVT +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZTS. ZTS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; CLVT keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
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 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLVT and ZTS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZTS (Zoetis Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
CLVT (Clarivate Plc): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 64% against 25.7%.
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
ZTSZTS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZTSZTS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLVTCLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
ZTSZTS on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
ZTSZTS on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
CLVTCLVT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ZTS, analyst targets favor CLVT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CLVT | ZTS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.8% | +19% | CLVT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | +59.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 7 | 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
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 | 53 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | ZTS | EPS growth -5.7% vs 16.2%; TTM ROE -7% vs 69.3%; gross margin 66.8% vs 70.9%; operating margin -3.5% vs 37% |
| Valuation | CLVT | Value 75 vs 62 |
| Technicals | ZTS | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs 7.3%; vs 200-day -22.2% vs -16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ZTS | Risk Resilience 31 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | CLVT | Target upside 27.8% vs 19% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLVT and ZTS 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 14 points. (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 ZTS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZTS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZTS +14
- 53 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- ZTS +17
- 51 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- ZTS +9
- 47 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- ZTS +9
- 47 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when ZTS moved ahead of CLVT.
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 CLVT
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.42%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ZTS
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.12%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1CLVT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge.
- 2CLVT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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
ZTS leads on balance| Metric | CLVT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | 9.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.7% | 16.2% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 70.9% |
| Operating margin | -3.5% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -7% | 69.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.94 | 2.93 |
Performance
ZTS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CLVT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.3% | 7.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | 9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.6% | 7.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -34.8% | -32.3% |
| Year to date | -46.7% | -36.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -49.9% | -44.1% |
Technicals
ZTS has the stronger structure| Metric | CLVT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.7 | 81.8 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 27 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | 7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.2% | -16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 64% | 25.7% |
Risk
ZTS is the more resilient| Metric | CLVT | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.84 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | -1.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.99 | -1.45 |
| Max drawdown | -61.4% | -53% |
| Current drawdown | -52.7% | -45.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 76.4% | 38.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLVT or ZTS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZTS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 67 against CLVT's 53. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. CLVT is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CLVT or ZTS the better buy right now?
ZTS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 ZTS over CLVT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZTS leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; ZTS leads Momentum by 25 points; ZTS leads Quality by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLVT or ZTS?
Analyst price targets imply +27.8% upside for CLVT and +19% for ZTS, so the Street currently favors CLVT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ZTS. 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, CLVT or ZTS?
CLVT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, CLVT or ZTS?
ZTS 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, CLVT or ZTS?
ZTS on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, CLVT or ZTS?
ZTS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZTS on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 CLVT more profitable than ZTS?
ZTS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 66.8% vs 70.9%; operating margin -3.5% vs 37%; ttm roe -7% vs 69.3%.
Is ZTS's lead over CLVT getting stronger or weaker?
ZTS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when ZTS moved ahead of CLVT.
What would change the CLVT vs ZTS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLVT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge; CLVT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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 CLVT and ZTS?
CLVT: 1 bullish / 2 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 CLVT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ZTS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CLVT 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.