TMO vs ZTS Stock Comparison
ZTS currently leads TMO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 55. The clearest difference is value, while TMO has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between TMO and ZTS?
ZTS leads the current stock comparison as Zoetis Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. vs Zoetis Inc.
ZTS leads
ZTS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZTS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
Zoetis Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZTS over TMO, 66 versus 55 as of Oct 31, 2026. ZTS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while TMO holds the stronger momentum profile. ZTS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZTS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ZTS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 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 TMO 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.
- Value34 vs 62ZTS +28
- Quality51 vs 70ZTS +19
- Momentum80 vs 69TMO +11
- Risk Resilience61 vs 61Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZTS. ZTS’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; TMO keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
ZTS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMO and ZTS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZTS (Zoetis Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
TMO (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
ZTSZTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
TMOTMO on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
ZTSZTS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ZTSZTS 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 | TMO | ZTS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.9% | +14.6% | ZTS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.3% | +44.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | TMO | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 14.34% | 20.11% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.880 | $0.800 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.720 | $2.000 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #46 | #14 |
ZTS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 20.11% a year against TMO's 14.34%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
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 | 55 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | ZTS | revenue growth 1.2% vs 9.1%; TTM ROE 13.3% vs 69.3%; gross margin 41.4% vs 70.9%; operating margin 18% vs 37% |
| Valuation | ZTS | Value 34 vs 62 |
| Technicals | TMO | Price vs 50-day 7% vs 6.4%; vs 200-day 27.3% vs -17.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | ZTS | Target upside -3.9% vs 14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMO and ZTS 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 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
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 · Jul 1 – Oct 30ZTS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZTS +11
- 55 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- ZTS +18
- 49 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- ZTS +18
- 48 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- ZTS +9
- 54 vs 63
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 1 when ZTS moved ahead of TMO.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TMO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.32%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ZTS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (25.46%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.72%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.17%, 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.
- 1TMO closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge.
- 2TMO's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ZTS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate ZTS'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
ZTS leads on balance| Metric | TMO | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 9.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.6% | 16.2% |
| Gross margin | 41.4% | 70.9% |
| Operating margin | 18% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.3% | 69.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.76 | 2.93 |
Performance
TMO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TMO | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | -2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.3% | 11.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22.1% | 2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 46.5% | -31.7% |
| Year to date | 21.5% | -38.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23% | -46.7% |
Technicals
TMO has the stronger structure| Metric | TMO | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.6 | 64.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.1 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7% | 6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27.3% | -17.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30% | 28.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TMO | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.6 | 0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | -1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.26 | -1.56 |
| Max drawdown | -31.4% | -52.5% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -46.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 38.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMO or ZTS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZTS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against TMO's 55. The edge comes from value and quality. TMO 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 TMO or ZTS the better buy right now?
ZTS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 ZTS over TMO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZTS leads Value by 28 points; ZTS leads Quality by 19 points; TMO leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMO or ZTS?
Analyst price targets imply -3.9% upside for TMO and +14.6% for ZTS, so the Street currently favors ZTS. 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, TMO or ZTS?
ZTS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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, TMO 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, TMO or ZTS?
TMO on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, TMO or ZTS?
ZTS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZTS 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 TMO more profitable than ZTS?
ZTS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 41.4% vs 70.9%; operating margin 18% vs 37%; ttm roe 13.3% vs 69.3%.
Is ZTS's lead over TMO getting stronger or weaker?
ZTS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-01, when ZTS moved ahead of TMO.
What would change the TMO vs ZTS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMO closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge; TMO's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ZTS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate ZTS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TMO and ZTS?
TMO: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZTS: 1 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 TMO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZTS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TMO 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.