UBER vs ZS Stock Comparison
UBER currently leads ZS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 48. The clearest difference is value, while ZS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between UBER and ZS?
UBER leads the current stock comparison as Uber Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Uber Technologies, Inc. vs Zscaler, Inc.
UBER leads
UBER leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support UBER, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Uber Technologies, Inc.
Zscaler, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UBER over ZS, 64 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. UBER's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ZS holds the stronger momentum profile. UBER also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UBER today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. UBER lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Uber Technologies, Inc. and Zscaler, Inc. 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 UBER and ZS 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.
- Value70 vs 34UBER +36
- Quality77 vs 48UBER +29
- Momentum44 vs 65ZS +21
- Risk Resilience59 vs 48UBER +11
5 of 6 evidence groups favor UBER. UBER’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ZS keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
UBER's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UBER and ZS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UBER (Uber Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ZS (Zscaler, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 61.1% against 24.8%.
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
UBERUBER on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZSZS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UBERUBER on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 points.
Momentum
ZSZS on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
UBERUBER on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
UBERUBER 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 | UBER | ZS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +54.3% | -9.4% | UBER has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.8% | +73% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 30 | 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 UBER. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UBER | 64 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | UBERon balance | revenue growth 7.5% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 8.1% vs 57.1%; TTM ROE 35.7% vs -3.7%; gross margin 42.3% vs 76.7%; operating margin 12.5% vs -4.7% — UBER takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UBER | Value 70 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ZS | Price vs 50-day -7.1% vs 19.5%; vs 200-day -6.9% vs 29.4% |
| Risk Resilience | UBER | Risk Resilience 59 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | UBER | Target upside 54.3% vs -9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UBER and ZS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 UBER.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UBER lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UBER +16
- 64 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- UBER +12
- 65 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- UBER +10
- 61 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- UBER +13
- 67 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only UBER
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.73%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ZS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.82%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.93%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
UBER 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 -1.91%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.84%, 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.
- 1ZS closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to UBER's edge.
- 2ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3UBER'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
UBER leads on balance| Metric | UBER | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.5% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 57.1% |
| Gross margin | 42.3% | 76.7% |
| Operating margin | 12.5% | -4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 35.7% | -3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.54 | 0.79 |
Performance
ZS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | UBER | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2% | 50.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.8% | 53.6% |
| Year to date | -15.6% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.5% | -28.3% |
Technicals
ZS has the stronger structure| Metric | UBER | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.7 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 17 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.1% | 19.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.9% | 29.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.8% | 61.1% |
Risk
UBER is the more resilient| Metric | UBER | ZS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.77 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.26 | -0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -33.9% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -30.9% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.1% | 66.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UBER or ZS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UBER is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against ZS's 48. The edge comes from value and quality. ZS 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 UBER or ZS the better buy right now?
UBER carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UBER over ZS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UBER leads Value by 36 points; UBER leads Quality by 29 points; ZS leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, UBER or ZS?
Analyst price targets imply +54.3% upside for UBER and -9.4% for ZS, so the Street currently favors UBER. 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, UBER or ZS?
UBER is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UBER on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 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, UBER or ZS?
ZS 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, UBER or ZS?
ZS on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, UBER or ZS?
UBER is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UBER on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 UBER more profitable than ZS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.3% vs 76.7%; operating margin 12.5% vs -4.7%; ttm roe 35.7% vs -3.7%. UBER leads on two measures and ZS 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 UBER's lead over ZS getting stronger or weaker?
UBER lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the UBER vs ZS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ZS closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to UBER's edge; ZS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; UBER'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 UBER and ZS?
UBER: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ZS: 3 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 UBER is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ZS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare UBER and ZS 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.