TXG vs ZTS Stock Comparison
10x Genomics, Inc. vs Zoetis Inc.
ZTS leads
ZTS leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support ZTS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
10x Genomics, Inc.
Zoetis Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZTS over TXG, 64 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. ZTS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while TXG holds the stronger momentum profile. ZTS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZTS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ZTS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare 10x Genomics, Inc. and Zoetis Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare TXG 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.
- Value30%34 vs 62ZTS +28
- Risk Resilience15%38 vs 55ZTS +17
- Quality30%59 vs 70ZTS +11
- Momentum25%67 vs 63TXG +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor ZTS. ZTS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; TXG keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2
No new signals fired.
ZTS's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TXG and ZTS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZTS (Zoetis Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
TXG (10x Genomics, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 72.5% against 34.3%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
ZTSZTS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZTSZTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
TXGTXG on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
ZTSZTS on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
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 | TXG | ZTS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -30.2% | +27% | ZTS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +98.3% | +51.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 | 50 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | ZTS | EPS growth -40% vs 16.2%; TTM ROE -9.3% vs 69.3%; gross margin 70% vs 70.9%; operating margin -14.3% vs 37% |
| Valuation | ZTS | Value 34 vs 62 |
| Technicals | TXG | Price vs 50-day 23.1% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 116.5% vs -26.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ZTS | Risk Resilience 38 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | ZTS | Target upside -30.2% vs 27% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TXG and ZTS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 ZTS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4ZTS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZTS +14
- 50 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- ZTS +13
- 50 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- ZTS +4
- 54 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 54 vs 54
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (75.80%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (36.34%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.9%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.63%, 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.
- 1TXG closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge.
- 2TXG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ZTS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
ZTS leads on balance| Metric | TXG | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.1% | 9.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -40% | 16.2% |
| Gross margin | 70% | 70.9% |
| Operating margin | -14.3% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -9.3% | 69.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.1 | 2.93 |
Performance
TXG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TXG | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.8% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 20.4% | 4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 101.8% | -4.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 201.1% | -37.6% |
| Year to date | 284.1% | -39.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 369.6% | -50.3% |
Technicals
TXG has the stronger structure| Metric | TXG | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.1 | 58.9 |
| ADX (14) | 43.3 | 10.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 23.1% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 116.5% | -26.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 72.5% | 34.3% |
Risk
ZTS is the more resilient| Metric | TXG | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.24 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.42 | -1.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 5.15 | -1.79 |
| Max drawdown | -28% | -53.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -50.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 72.5% | 37.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TXG or ZTS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZTS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 64 against TXG's 50. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. TXG 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 TXG or ZTS the better buy right now?
ZTS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZTS over TXG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ZTS leads Value by 28 points; ZTS leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; ZTS leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TXG or ZTS?
Analyst price targets imply -30.2% upside for TXG and +27% 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, TXG 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, TXG 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, TXG or ZTS?
TXG on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, TXG or ZTS?
ZTS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ZTS on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 TXG more profitable than ZTS?
ZTS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 70% vs 70.9%; operating margin -14.3% vs 37%; ttm roe -9.3% vs 69.3%.
Is ZTS's lead over TXG getting stronger or weaker?
ZTS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TXG vs ZTS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TXG closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZTS's edge; TXG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ZTS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 TXG and ZTS?
TXG: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZTS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 TXG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZTS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TXG and ZTS 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.