TRMB vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
Trimble Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
TRMB leads
TRMB leads by 8 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, and the lead recently changed hands.
Trimble Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TRMB over ZBRA, 61 versus 53 as of Sep 5, 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. TRMB lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRMB now leads by 8.
Compare Trimble Inc. and Zebra Technologies Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%67 vs 42TRMB +25
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 42TRMB +10
- Quality30%56 vs 54Even
- Value30%67 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 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
TRMB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
ZBRAZBRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TRMBTRMB on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
TRMBTRMB on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 | +23.6% | -6.5% | TRMB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.9% | +51.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 6 | 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 | 61 vs 53 |
| 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 6.1% vs 15.2%; vs 200-day -8.2% vs 41% |
| Risk Resilience | TRMB | Risk Resilience 52 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | TRMB | Target upside 23.6% vs -6.5% |
✓ 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 moderate at 8 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 swung materially session to session. (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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4TRMB lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRMB now leads by 8.
- Today
- TRMB +8
- 61 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- TRMB +14
- 63 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBRA +2
- 63 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBRA +2
- 61 vs 63
The lead changed hands 7 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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (15.61%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.39%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ZBRA is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -1.05%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.47%, AIQ +2 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 25 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 starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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) | -2.5% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.7% | 56.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -15.1% | 58.4% |
| Year to date | -24.1% | 49.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.3% | 18.7% |
Technicals
ZBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | TRMB | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.9 | 44.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 27.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.1% | 15.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.2% | 41% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.5% | 25.2% |
Risk
TRMB is the more resilient| Metric | TRMB | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.13 | 1.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.88 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.22 | 0.82 |
| Max drawdown | -41.5% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -28.8% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 32% | 49.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -3.9% |
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 Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against ZBRA's 53. 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 Sep 5, 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 TRMB over ZBRA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TRMB leads Momentum by 25 points; TRMB leads Risk Resilience by 10 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 +23.6% upside for TRMB and -6.5% 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 25 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 10 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of 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 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRMB now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 7 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 25 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 starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about TRMB and ZBRA?
TRMB: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. ZBRA: 3 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
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.