VEEV vs ZM Stock Comparison
ZM currently leads VEEV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 76 vs 66. The clearest difference is value, while VEEV has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between VEEV and ZM?
ZM leads the current stock comparison as Zoom Communications, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Veeva Systems Inc. vs Zoom Communications, Inc.
ZM leads
ZM leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from VEEV.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ZM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Veeva Systems Inc.
Zoom Communications, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZM over VEEV, 76 versus 66 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while VEEV holds the stronger momentum profile. ZM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. ZM lead: Reversed — VEEV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZM now leads by 10.
Compare Veeva Systems Inc. and Zoom Communications, 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 VEEV and ZM 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.
- Value38 vs 64ZM +26
- Quality74 vs 92ZM +18
- Momentum86 vs 75VEEV +11
- Risk Resilience72 vs 70Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ZM. ZM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; VEEV 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ZM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VEEV and ZM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ZM (Zoom Communications, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
VEEV (Veeva Systems Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
ZMZM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ZMZM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ZMZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
VEEVVEEV on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
VEEVVEEV carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ZMZM 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 | VEEV | ZM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -14.1% | +17.9% | ZM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +59.9% | +24.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ZM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ZM | 66 vs 76 |
| Fundamentals | ZMon balance | revenue growth 5.1% vs 3.1%; EPS growth 5% vs 262.1%; TTM ROE 14% vs 32.3%; gross margin 74.9% vs 77.3%; operating margin 29.9% vs 23.7% — ZM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZM | Value 38 vs 64 |
| Technicals | VEEV | Price vs 50-day 17.8% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 54.2% vs 6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 72 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | ZM | Target upside -14.1% vs 17.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VEEV and ZM 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 10 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 ZM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ZM lead: Reversed — VEEV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZM now leads by 10.
- Today
- ZM +10
- 66 vs 76
- 7 sessions ago
- ZM +12
- 66 vs 78
- 30 sessions ago
- VEEV +1
- 64 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- ZM +7
- 67 vs 74
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when ZM moved ahead of VEEV.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only VEEV
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ZM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.55%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
VEEV 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.59%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.03%, 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.
- 1VEEV closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge.
- 2VEEV's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ZM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
ZM leads on balance| Metric | VEEV | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.1% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5% | 262.1% |
| Gross margin | 74.9% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 29.9% | 23.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14% | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Performance
VEEV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | VEEV | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.6% | -0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 22.1% | 7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 71.2% | 13.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 89.7% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 38.7% | 12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.9% | 22.1% |
Technicals
VEEV has the stronger structure| Metric | VEEV | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.5 | 63.4 |
| ADX (14) | 43.6 | 11.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 17.8% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 54.2% | 6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.9% | 37.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | VEEV | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.65 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -49.4% | -25.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -12.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.1% | 44.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VEEV or ZM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 76 against VEEV's 66. The edge comes from value and quality. VEEV 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 VEEV or ZM the better buy right now?
ZM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZM over VEEV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZM leads Value by 26 points; ZM leads Quality by 18 points; VEEV leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, VEEV or ZM?
Analyst price targets imply -14.1% upside for VEEV and +17.9% for ZM, so the Street currently favors ZM. 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, VEEV or ZM?
ZM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, VEEV or ZM?
ZM 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, VEEV or ZM?
VEEV on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, VEEV or ZM?
VEEV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VEEV carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is VEEV more profitable than ZM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.9% vs 77.3%; operating margin 29.9% vs 23.7%; ttm roe 14% vs 32.3%. VEEV leads on one measure and ZM on two measures, 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 ZM's lead over VEEV getting stronger or weaker?
ZM lead: Reversed — VEEV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZM now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-30, when ZM moved ahead of VEEV.
What would change the VEEV vs ZM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VEEV closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge; VEEV's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ZM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 VEEV and ZM?
VEEV: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 VEEV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VEEV and ZM 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.