TRMB vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
TRMB currently leads ZBRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 60. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between TRMB and ZBRA?
TRMB leads the current stock comparison as Trimble Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Trimble Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
TRMB leads
TRMB leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from ZBRA.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TRMB, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Trimble Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TRMB over ZBRA, 64 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. TRMB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. TRMB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TRMB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. TRMB lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRMB now leads by 4.
Compare Trimble Inc. and Zebra Technologies Corporation 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 TRMB and ZBRA 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.
- Momentum78 vs 65TRMB +13
- Risk Resilience54 vs 45TRMB +9
- Quality56 vs 54Even
- Value67 vs 68Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TRMB. TRMB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +13
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
TRMB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TRMB and ZBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TRMB (Trimble Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
ZBRA (Zebra Technologies Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
TRMBTRMB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZBRAZBRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TRMBTRMB on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
TRMBTRMB on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
TRMBTRMB 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 | TRMB | ZBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.4% | -8.6% | TRMB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.9% | +38.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 7 | 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 TRMB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TRMB | 64 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | ZBRAon balance | revenue growth 3.4% vs 4.1%; EPS growth -5.8% vs 72.8%; TTM ROE -1.9% vs 15.1%; gross margin 68.4% vs 48.9%; operating margin 17.5% vs 16.1% — ZBRA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 67 vs 68 |
| Technicals | ZBRA | Price vs 50-day 6.4% vs 6.9%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs 39.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TRMB | Risk Resilience 54 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | TRMB | Target upside 17.4% vs -8.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TRMB and ZBRA 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TRMB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TRMB lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRMB now leads by 4.
- Today
- TRMB +4
- 64 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- TRMB +3
- 63 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBRA +8
- 56 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBRA +6
- 58 vs 64
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 9 when TRMB moved ahead of ZBRA.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TRMB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.51%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ZBRA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (33.02%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TRMB 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.76%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.8%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1ZBRA closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TRMB's edge.
- 2ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3TRMB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
ZBRA leads on balance| Metric | TRMB | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.4% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.8% | 72.8% |
| Gross margin | 68.4% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -1.9% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.86 |
Performance
ZBRA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TRMB | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.8% | 6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.8% | 46.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.9% | 62.3% |
| Year to date | -20.7% | 58.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -20.6% | 30.7% |
Technicals
ZBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | TRMB | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.9 | 59.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.2 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.4% | 6.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | 39.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.7% | 23.4% |
Risk
TRMB is the more resilient| Metric | TRMB | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.1 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.65 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.91 | 1.25 |
| Max drawdown | -41.5% | -36.5% |
| Current drawdown | -25.6% | -1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.1% | 48.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TRMB or ZBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TRMB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against ZBRA's 60. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 TRMB or ZBRA the better buy right now?
TRMB 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TRMB over ZBRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TRMB leads Momentum by 13 points; TRMB leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TRMB or ZBRA?
Analyst price targets imply +17.4% upside for TRMB and -8.6% for ZBRA, so the Street currently favors TRMB. 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, TRMB or ZBRA?
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, TRMB or ZBRA?
ZBRA 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, TRMB or ZBRA?
TRMB on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, TRMB or ZBRA?
TRMB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TRMB on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 TRMB more profitable than ZBRA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.4% vs 48.9%; operating margin 17.5% vs 16.1%; ttm roe -1.9% vs 15.1%. TRMB leads on two measures and ZBRA 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 TRMB's lead over ZBRA getting stronger or weaker?
TRMB lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRMB now leads by 4. 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 2026-07-09, when TRMB moved ahead of ZBRA.
What would change the TRMB vs ZBRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZBRA closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TRMB's edge; ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; TRMB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 TRMB and ZBRA?
TRMB: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZBRA: 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 TRMB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ZBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TRMB and ZBRA 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.