XLK vs ZM Stock Comparison
Compare XLK and ZM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between XLK 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
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF vs Zoom Communications, Inc.
ZM leads
ZM leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support ZM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
Zoom Communications, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZM over XLK, 70 versus 56 as of Sep 6, 2026. ZM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. ZM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor ZM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. ZM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF and Zoom Communications, Inc. 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 XLK 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.
- Value30%36 vs 64ZM +28
- Quality30%74 vs 92ZM +18
- Momentum25%57 vs 54Even
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 64Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor ZM. ZM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ZM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XLK and ZM both carry a full feed there.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
ZMZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
XLKXLK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | XLK | ZM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +15.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +24.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 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 | 56 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | ZM | Value 36 vs 64 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 2.6% vs 5.7%; vs 200-day 16.8% vs 12.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of XLK 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 ZM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ZM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ZM +14
- 56 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- ZM +7
- 57 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- ZM +13
- 61 vs 74
- 90 sessions ago
- ZM +13
- 48 vs 61
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.88%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.01%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.87%)
ZM 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 +0.7%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.25%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ZM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
Split| Metric | XLK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 262.1% |
| Gross margin | — | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | — | 23.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.01 |
Performance
XLK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | XLK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | -3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.9% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.4% | 30.7% |
| Year to date | 30.1% | 17.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 43.3% | 21.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | XLK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.9 | 44.4 |
| ADX (14) | 11.1 | 21.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.6% | 5.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.8% | 12.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.9% | 50.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | XLK | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.34 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.06 | 0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -16.1% | -25.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -9.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 43.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, XLK or ZM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 70 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 XLK or ZM the better buy right now?
ZM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ZM over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ZM leads Value by 28 points; ZM leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, XLK or ZM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for XLK and +15.7% for 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, XLK or ZM?
ZM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZM 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, XLK or ZM?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, XLK or ZM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, XLK or ZM?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is XLK more profitable than ZM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is ZM's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
ZM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the XLK vs ZM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; ZM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 XLK and ZM?
XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ZM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 XLK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.