VRSN vs ZBRA Stock Comparison
Compare VRSN and ZBRA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between VRSN and ZBRA?
VRSN leads the current stock comparison as VeriSign, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VeriSign, Inc. vs Zebra Technologies Corporation
VRSN leads
VRSN leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from ZBRA.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support VRSN, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
VeriSign, Inc.
Zebra Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VRSN over ZBRA, 54 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. VRSN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while ZBRA holds the stronger value profile. VRSN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VRSN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. VRSN lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 17 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VRSN now leads by 2.
Compare VeriSign, 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 VRSN 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.
- Momentum70 vs 36VRSN +34
- Value40 vs 68ZBRA +28
- Quality60 vs 54VRSN +6
- Risk Resilience46 vs 41VRSN +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor VRSN. VRSN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; ZBRA keeps a meaningful value 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 -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
VRSN's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VRSN and ZBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VRSN (VeriSign, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
ZBRA (Zebra Technologies Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
VRSNVRSN 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 28 points.
Momentum
VRSNVRSN on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
VRSNVRSN on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
VRSNVRSN 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 | VRSN | ZBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.2% | -3.2% | VRSN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +9.1% | +51.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VRSN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 54 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ZBRAon balance | revenue growth 1.3% vs 4.1%; EPS growth 1.7% vs 72.8%; TTM ROE -39.2% vs 15.1%; gross margin 88.5% vs 48.9%; operating margin 67.9% vs 16.1% — ZBRA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ZBRA | Value 40 vs 68 |
| Technicals | ZBRA | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs 9.4%; vs 200-day 10.1% vs 32.8% |
| Risk Resilience | VRSN | Risk Resilience 46 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | VRSN | Target upside 16.2% vs -3.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VRSN 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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 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 VRSN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10VRSN lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 17 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VRSN now leads by 2.
- Today
- VRSN +2
- 54 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- VRSN +4
- 57 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ZBRA +17
- 44 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ZBRA +14
- 48 vs 62
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when ZBRA moved ahead of VRSN.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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
VRSN 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 +1.34%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1ZBRA closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to VRSN's edge.
- 2ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3VRSN'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 | VRSN | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.3% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.7% | 72.8% |
| Gross margin | 88.5% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 67.9% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -39.2% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | -1.04 | 0.86 |
Performance
ZBRA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | VRSN | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.1% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | 58.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.5% | 61% |
| Year to date | 18.9% | 41.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.1% | 9.6% |
Technicals
ZBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | VRSN | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.3 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 14.1 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | 9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.1% | 32.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 26.7% |
Risk
VRSN is the more resilient| Metric | VRSN | ZBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.01 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.06 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -26.9% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 29% | 49.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VRSN or ZBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VRSN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against ZBRA's 52. The edge comes from momentum and quality. ZBRA is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 VRSN or ZBRA the better buy right now?
VRSN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VRSN over ZBRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VRSN leads Momentum by 34 points; ZBRA leads Value by 28 points; VRSN leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, VRSN or ZBRA?
Analyst price targets imply +16.2% upside for VRSN and -3.2% for ZBRA, so the Street currently favors VRSN. 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, VRSN or ZBRA?
ZBRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZBRA 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, VRSN 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, VRSN or ZBRA?
VRSN on the Momentum factor, by 34 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, VRSN or ZBRA?
VRSN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VRSN on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 VRSN more profitable than ZBRA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 88.5% vs 48.9%; operating margin 67.9% vs 16.1%; ttm roe -39.2% vs 15.1%. VRSN 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 VRSN's lead over ZBRA getting stronger or weaker?
VRSN lead: Reversed — ZBRA led by 17 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VRSN now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-27, when ZBRA moved ahead of VRSN.
What would change the VRSN 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to VRSN's edge; ZBRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; VRSN'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 VRSN and ZBRA?
VRSN: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. 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 VRSN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VRSN 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.