TYL vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
Compare TYL and ZBRA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TYL and ZBRA?
ZBRA leads the current stock comparison as Zebra Technologies Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Tyler Technologies, Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
ZBRA leads
ZBRA leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value. Wall Street currently favors TYL on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZBRA, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Tyler Technologies, Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZBRA over TYL, 52 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. ZBRA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while TYL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ZBRA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TYL. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZBRA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. ZBRA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Tyler Technologies, Inc. and Zebra Technologies Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare TYL 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.
- Value49 vs 68ZBRA +19
- Risk Resilience50 vs 41TYL +9
- Quality53 vs 54Even
- Momentum36 vs 36Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZBRA. ZBRA’s edge is concentrated in value; TYL keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
ZBRA's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TYL and ZBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZBRA (Zebra Technologies Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
TYL (Tyler Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41.9% against 26.7%.
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
ZBRAZBRA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZBRAZBRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZBRAZBRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TYLTYL on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
TYLTYL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ZBRA, analyst targets favor TYL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TYL | ZBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.6% | -3.2% | TYL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.1% | +51.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 6 | 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 ZBRA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZBRA | 47 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ZBRAon balance | revenue growth 5.1% vs 4.1%; EPS growth 18.4% vs 72.8%; TTM ROE 9.3% vs 15.1%; gross margin 46.6% vs 48.9%; operating margin 15.1% vs 16.1% — ZBRA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZBRA | Value 49 vs 68 |
| Technicals | ZBRA | Price vs 50-day 2.6% vs 9.4%; vs 200-day -5.7% vs 32.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TYL | Risk Resilience 50 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | TYL | Target upside 21.6% vs -3.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TYL 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ZBRA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ZBRA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZBRA +5
- 47 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- TYL +8
- 61 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBRA +3
- 58 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 62 vs 62
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when ZBRA moved ahead of TYL.
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 (8.37%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.19%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.65%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ZBRA 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.35%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.85%, 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.
- 1TYL closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBRA's edge.
- 2TYL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ZBRA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
ZBRA leads on balance| Metric | TYL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.1% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.4% | 72.8% |
| Gross margin | 46.6% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 15.1% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.3% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.48 | 0.86 |
Performance
ZBRA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TYL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.5% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.6% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.8% | 58.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.7% | 61% |
| Year to date | -26.1% | 41.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -40.7% | 9.6% |
Technicals
ZBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | TYL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.7 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 28.7 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.6% | 9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.7% | 32.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.9% | 26.7% |
Risk
TYL is the more resilient| Metric | TYL | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.13 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.46 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -50.7% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -39.9% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.2% | 49.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TYL or ZBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZBRA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against TYL's 47. The edge comes from value. TYL is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 TYL or ZBRA the better buy right now?
ZBRA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZBRA over TYL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZBRA leads Value by 19 points; TYL leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TYL or ZBRA?
Analyst price targets imply +21.6% upside for TYL and -3.2% for ZBRA, so the Street currently favors TYL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ZBRA. 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, TYL or ZBRA?
ZBRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, TYL 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, TYL or ZBRA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, TYL or ZBRA?
TYL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TYL 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 TYL more profitable than ZBRA?
ZBRA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 46.6% vs 48.9%; operating margin 15.1% vs 16.1%; ttm roe 9.3% vs 15.1%.
Is ZBRA's lead over TYL getting stronger or weaker?
ZBRA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when ZBRA moved ahead of TYL.
What would change the TYL vs ZBRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TYL closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZBRA's edge; TYL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ZBRA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 TYL and ZBRA?
TYL: 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 TYL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ZBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TYL 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.