SPY vs ZM Stock Comparison
ZM currently leads SPY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 76 vs 66. The clearest difference is value, while SPY has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between SPY 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 SPDR S&P 500 ETF vs Zoom Communications, Inc.
ZM leads
ZM leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from SPY.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support ZM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Zoom Communications, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ZM over SPY, 76 versus 66 as of Oct 21, 2026. ZM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while SPY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ZM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 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 — SPY led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ZM now leads by 10.
Compare State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF and Zoom Communications, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare SPY 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.
- Value41 vs 64ZM +23
- Risk Resilience88 vs 70SPY +18
- Momentum63 vs 75ZM +12
- Quality84 vs 92ZM +8
3 of 4 evidence groups favor ZM. ZM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; SPY keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPY 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 momentum.
SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
ZMZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
ZMZM on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
SPYSPY on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
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 | SPY | ZM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +17.9% | 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
3 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 | 66 vs 76 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | ZM | Value 41 vs 64 |
| Technicals | ZM | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 5.9% vs 6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 88 vs 70 |
| 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 SPY 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 — SPY led by 3 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
- SPY +3
- 66 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- ZM +4
- 70 vs 74
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when ZM moved ahead of SPY.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.92%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ZM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.55%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
SPY 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1SPY closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge.
- 2SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
Split| Metric | SPY | 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
ZM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SPY | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | 7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 13.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.2% | 7.1% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.4% | 22.1% |
Technicals
ZM has the stronger structure| Metric | SPY | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.2 | 63.4 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 11.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.9% | 6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9% | 37.6% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | SPY | ZM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.39 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -25.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -12.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 44.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SPY or ZM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ZM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 76 against SPY's 66. The edge comes from value and momentum. SPY 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 SPY or ZM the better buy right now?
ZM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 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 SPY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ZM leads Value by 23 points; SPY leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; ZM leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SPY or ZM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for SPY and +17.9% 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, SPY or ZM?
ZM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ZM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, SPY 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, SPY or ZM?
ZM on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, SPY or ZM?
SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 SPY more profitable than ZM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is ZM's lead over SPY getting stronger or weaker?
ZM lead: Reversed — SPY led by 3 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 SPY.
What would change the SPY vs ZM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SPY closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ZM's edge; SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 SPY and ZM?
SPY: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 SPY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ZM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.