IBM vs ZS Stock Comparison
International Business Machines Corporation vs Zscaler, Inc.
IBM leads
IBM leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support IBM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
International Business Machines Corporation
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBM over ZS, 56 versus 49 as of Sep 2, 2026. IBM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ZS holds the stronger momentum profile. IBM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IBM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IBM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare International Business Machines Corporation and Zscaler, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Value30%67 vs 35IBM +32
- Momentum25%41 vs 66ZS +25
- Quality30%61 vs 48IBM +13
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 49Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor IBM. IBM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ZS keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
IBM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IBM and ZS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBM (International Business Machines Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 60.2% against 29%.
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
IBMIBM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
IBMIBM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IBMIBM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
ZSZS on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
IBMIBM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
IBMIBM 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 | IBM | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.8% | +9.6% | IBM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +65% | +45.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 24 | 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 IBM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IBM | 56 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | IBMon balance | revenue growth 7.8% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 76.9% vs 57.1%; ROE 33.5% vs -3.7%; gross margin 58.4% vs 76.7%; operating margin 17.9% vs -4.7% — IBM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IBM | Value 67 vs 35 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day -4.5% vs 9.5%; vs 200-day -11.3% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 48 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | IBM | Target upside 15.8% vs 9.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IBM and ZS 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 7 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 IBM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1IBM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBM +7
- 56 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- IBM +8
- 57 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- IBM +8
- 61 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- IBM +10
- 53 vs 43
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when IBM moved ahead of ZS.
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, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.34%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.49%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.65%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
IBM 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 +0.51%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.59%, 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.
- 1ZS closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge.
- 2ZS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IBM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
IBM leads on balance| Metric | IBM | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.8% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 76.9% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 58.4% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | 17.9% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity | 33.5% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.89 | 0.79 |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | IBM | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.6 | 56.5 |
| ADX (14) | 10.2 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.5% | 9.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.3% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29% | 60.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IBM | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | -0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.08 | -0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -37.5% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -29% | -44% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.5% | 62.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IBM or ZS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 56 against ZS's 49. The edge comes from value and quality. ZS is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 IBM or ZS the better buy right now?
IBM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBM over ZS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. IBM leads Value by 32 points; ZS leads Momentum by 25 points; IBM leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IBM or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply +15.8% upside for IBM and +9.6% for ZS, so the Street currently favors IBM. 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, IBM or ZS?
IBM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IBM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, IBM or ZS?
IBM 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, IBM or ZS?
ZS on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, IBM or ZS?
IBM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is IBM more profitable than ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.4% vs 76.7%; operating margin 17.9% vs -4.7%; roe 33.5% vs -3.7%. IBM leads on two measures and ZS 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 IBM's lead over ZS getting stronger or weaker?
IBM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when IBM moved ahead of ZS.
What would change the IBM vs ZS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZS closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge; ZS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IBM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 IBM and ZS?
IBM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. ZS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 IBM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ZS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare IBM and ZS 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.