TMDX vs ZBH Stock Comparison
Compare TMDX and ZBH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TMDX and ZBH?
ZBH leads the current stock comparison as Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
TransMedics Group, Inc. vs Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
ZBH leads
ZBH leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TMDX on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZBH, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
TransMedics Group, Inc.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZBH over TMDX, 52 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. ZBH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while TMDX holds the stronger momentum profile. ZBH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TMDX. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZBH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ZBH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare TransMedics Group, Inc. and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare TMDX 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.
- Value32 vs 67ZBH +35
- Risk Resilience34 vs 53ZBH +19
- Momentum43 vs 28TMDX +15
- Quality64 vs 57TMDX +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZBH. ZBH’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; TMDX keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ZBH's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMDX and ZBH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZBH (Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
TMDX (TransMedics Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 43.4% 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
ZBHZBH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TMDXTMDX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZBHZBH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
TMDXTMDX on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
ZBHZBH on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
TMDXTMDX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ZBH, analyst targets favor TMDX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TMDX | ZBH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.9% | +7.3% | TMDX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +75.6% | +36.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 9 | 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 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 | 45 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | TMDXon balance | revenue growth 9.2% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 100% vs -15.6%; TTM ROE 33% vs 6.4%; gross margin 58.7% vs 69.9%; operating margin 12.2% vs 15.7% — TMDX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZBH | Value 32 vs 67 |
| Technicals | ZBH | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day -18.4% vs 1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ZBH | Risk Resilience 34 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | TMDX | Target upside 23.9% vs 7.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMDX and ZBH 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 ZBH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ZBH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZBH +7
- 45 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- ZBH +14
- 47 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBH +12
- 52 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBH +17
- 42 vs 59
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.17%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.83%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.06%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 -3.36%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.14%, 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.
- 1TMDX closes the Value gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBH's edge.
- 2TMDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ZBH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate ZBH's advantage entirely.
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
TMDX leads on balance| Metric | TMDX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.2% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 100% | -15.6% |
| Gross margin | 58.7% | 69.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.2% | 15.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.67 | 0.59 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TMDX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | -7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | -5.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.7% | 4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -34.1% | -1.4% |
| Year to date | -30.1% | 2.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.5% | -11% |
Technicals
ZBH has the stronger structure| Metric | TMDX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40 | 30.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 22.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.4% | 1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.4% | 25.7% |
Risk
ZBH is the more resilient| Metric | TMDX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.22 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.2 | -0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.26 | -0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -58.8% | -23.7% |
| Current drawdown | -43.5% | -11.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 57.5% | 32% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMDX or ZBH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZBH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against TMDX's 45. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. TMDX 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 TMDX or ZBH the better buy right now?
ZBH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZBH over TMDX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZBH leads Value by 35 points; ZBH leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; TMDX leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMDX or ZBH?
Analyst price targets imply +23.9% upside for TMDX and +7.3% for ZBH, so the Street currently favors TMDX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ZBH. 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, TMDX or ZBH?
ZBH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBH 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, TMDX or ZBH?
TMDX 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, TMDX or ZBH?
TMDX on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, TMDX or ZBH?
ZBH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZBH on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 TMDX more profitable than ZBH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.7% vs 69.9%; operating margin 12.2% vs 15.7%; ttm roe 33% vs 6.4%. TMDX leads on one measure and ZBH on two measures, 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 ZBH's lead over TMDX getting stronger or weaker?
ZBH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TMDX vs ZBH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMDX closes the Value gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBH's edge; TMDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ZBH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate ZBH's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TMDX and ZBH?
TMDX: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. ZBH: 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 TMDX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ZBH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TMDX 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.