NOW vs ZS Stock Comparison
NOW currently leads ZS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between NOW and ZS?
NOW leads the current stock comparison as ServiceNow, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ServiceNow, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
NOW leads
NOW leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ZS.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NOW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ServiceNow, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOW over ZS, 57 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. NOW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. NOW also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. NOW lead: Reversed — ZS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOW now leads by 9.
Compare ServiceNow, Inc. and Zscaler, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare NOW and ZS 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.
- Quality64 vs 48NOW +16
- Momentum81 vs 65NOW +16
- Value37 vs 34Even
- Risk Resilience46 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NOW. NOW’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
NOW's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NOW and ZS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NOW (ServiceNow, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 61.1% against 40.7%.
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
NOWNOW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
NOWNOW on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
NOWNOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NOWNOW 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 | NOW | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.3% | -9.4% | NOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +86.4% | +73% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 30 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NOW | 57 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | NOWon balance | revenue growth 5.8% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -35.6% vs 57.1%; TTM ROE 13.8% vs -3.7%; gross margin 74.8% vs 76.7%; operating margin 11.4% vs -4.7% — NOW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 37 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day 12.8% vs 19.5%; vs 200-day 28.8% vs 29.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | NOW | Target upside 4.3% vs -9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NOW 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 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 NOW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NOW lead: Reversed — ZS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOW now leads by 9.
- Today
- NOW +9
- 57 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- NOW +4
- 57 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ZS +1
- 50 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- ZS +1
- 53 vs 54
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when ZS moved ahead of NOW.
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 NOW
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ZS
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
NOW 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 +2.39%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.84%, 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 Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOW's edge.
- 2ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3NOW'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
NOW leads on balance| Metric | NOW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -35.6% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 74.8% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.8% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.79 |
Performance
NOW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NOW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.9% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.2% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 49.1% | 50.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 49.3% | 53.6% |
| Year to date | -2.4% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -16.4% | -28.3% |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | NOW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.3 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.7 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 12.8% | 19.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 28.8% | 29.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.7% | 61.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | NOW | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.1 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.15 | -0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -55.9% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -20.6% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 58% | 66.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NOW or ZS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NOW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against ZS's 48. 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 NOW or ZS the better buy right now?
NOW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NOW over ZS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NOW leads Quality by 16 points; NOW leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NOW or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply +4.3% upside for NOW and -9.4% for ZS, so the Street currently favors NOW. 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, NOW or ZS?
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, NOW or ZS?
ZS 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, NOW or ZS?
NOW on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, NOW or ZS?
NOW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NOW 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 NOW more profitable than ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.8% vs 76.7%; operating margin 11.4% vs -4.7%; ttm roe 13.8% vs -3.7%. NOW 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 NOW's lead over ZS getting stronger or weaker?
NOW lead: Reversed — ZS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NOW 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-18, when ZS moved ahead of NOW.
What would change the NOW vs ZS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZS closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOW's edge; ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; NOW'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 NOW and ZS?
NOW: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZS: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 NOW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NOW and ZS 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.