TMDX vs ZBH Stock Comparison
ZBH currently leads TMDX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 39. The clearest difference is momentum, while TMDX has the stronger quality profile.
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 momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
TransMedics Group, Inc. vs Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
ZBH leads
ZBH leads by 26 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TMDX on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZBH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
TransMedics Group, Inc.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZBH over TMDX, 65 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. ZBH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while TMDX holds the stronger quality profile. ZBH also shows the stronger 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 Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ZBH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 26 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
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 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.
- Momentum23 vs 80ZBH +57
- Value32 vs 66ZBH +34
- Risk Resilience31 vs 55ZBH +24
- Quality64 vs 57TMDX +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZBH. ZBH’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; TMDX keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZBH's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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 momentum and value.
TMDX (TransMedics Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 49.2% against 28.4%.
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 34 points.
Momentum
ZBHZBH on the Momentum factor, by 57 points.
Lower downside
ZBHZBH on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 | +55.4% | +10.4% | TMDX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +75.1% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 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 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 | 39 vs 65 |
| 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 66 |
| Technicals | ZBH | Price vs 50-day -20.2% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day -29.8% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | ZBH | Risk Resilience 31 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | TMDX | Target upside 55.4% vs 10.4% |
✓ 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 26 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 ZBH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ZBH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 26 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZBH +26
- 39 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- ZBH +27
- 39 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBH +11
- 41 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBH +12
- 51 vs 63
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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TMDX
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (15.18%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.52%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ZBH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.76%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.68%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.03%, 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.
- 1TMDX closes the Momentum gap — currently 57 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 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
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
ZBH leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TMDX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.6% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.8% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.1% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -32.1% | 14.2% |
| Year to date | -45% | 7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -47.1% | -6.4% |
Technicals
ZBH has the stronger structure| Metric | TMDX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.4 | 73.3 |
| ADX (14) | 29 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -20.2% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.8% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 49.2% | 28.4% |
Risk
ZBH is the more resilient| Metric | TMDX | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.09 | 0.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.93 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.24 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -58.8% | -22.9% |
| Current drawdown | -55.5% | -6.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 57.3% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -2.8% |
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 Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against TMDX's 39. The edge comes from momentum and value. TMDX 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 TMDX or ZBH the better buy right now?
ZBH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 ZBH over TMDX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZBH leads Momentum by 57 points; ZBH leads Value by 34 points; ZBH leads Risk Resilience by 24 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 +55.4% upside for TMDX and +10.4% 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 34 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?
ZBH on the Momentum factor, by 57 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 24 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 26 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. 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 Momentum gap — currently 57 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 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 TMDX and ZBH?
TMDX: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZBH: 4 bullish / 1 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.