Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ZBRA scored 67.2, MSI scored 60.9 — ZBRA leads.
Compare another set
ZBRA
Zebra Technologies Corporation
Communication Equipment · Quality-Growth
67.2
$387.18 · $18.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.3
ZBRA leads
MSI
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Communication Equipment · Quality-Growth
60.9
$444.18 · $73.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMSI35.0x
Fastest growthZBRA+12.7%
Strongest balance sheetZBRA0.86
Highest qualityMSI83 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ZBRA
stronger →← stronger
MSI
77
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
83
76
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
36
ZBRA and MSI split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ZBRA
MSI
$904mC+
FCF
$2.7bB
+12.7%B+
Rev
+10.3%B
0.86C+
D/E
3.58D
35.0xB
P/E
35.0xB
0.64A-
PEG
1.97C+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ZBRA
MSI
91% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
48% above
~22%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
-49%
1-yr DCF upside
-37%
-48%
5-yr DCF upside
-32%
-46%
10-yr DCF upside
-25%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ZBRA
Why this score
Buying back stock
MSI
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
ZBRAZebra Technologies Corporation
Communication Equipment · $387.18 · beta 1.58
Why now
Communication Equipment · market cap $18.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $390.80 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.64 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $413.85 (implying +7% upside).
Moat
ROE 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 168% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Beta 1.58 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 35x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
MSIMotorola Solutions, Inc.
Communication Equipment · $444.18 · beta 0.89
Why now
Communication Equipment · market cap $73.5b. 10% off the 52-week high of $494.85. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 11 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $526.91 (implying +19% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 80% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 125% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 3.58 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 35x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
ZBRA leads MSI by 15.1 points (74.1 to 59.0), its sharpest advantage coming in PEG (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer MSI for its stronger FCF (grade B).
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ZBRA and MSI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.3 points in favor of ZBRA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueZBRA 51.9 · MSI 36.0ZBRA +15.9
QualityZBRA 76.9 · MSI 82.8MSI +5.9
GrowthZBRA 76.1 · MSI 75.9level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is ZBRA or MSI the better stock?
ZBRA scores higher: ZBRA 67.2, MSI 60.9 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do ZBRA and MSI differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ZBRA leads by 16 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are ZBRA and MSI scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.