ZBRA
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPEvidence as of 2026-10-22The desk's Snapshot
3 of 15 open to everyone · members see allRead the full desk report on ZBRA
Seven analysts, the debate, the risk review, every claim cited. And the same for every name you hold.
Free plan, no credit card required. Silver opens the full report, $19.99 a month. AI-written · every claim cites a source · Insight, not advice.
Overview · ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORP
Zebra Technologies Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides enterprise asset intelligence solutions in the automatic identification and data capture solutions industry worldwide. It operates in two segments, Asset Intelligence & Tracking and Enterprise Visibility & Mobility. The company designs, manufactures, and sells printers, which produce labels, wristbands, tickets, receipts, and plastic cards; dye-…
Management team
- Mr. Joseph Ramsey White · Chief Product & Solutions OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Jeffrey F. Schmitz · Chief People OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Ms. Cristen L. Kogl · Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel & Corporate SecretaryFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Nathan Andrew Winters · Chief Financial OfficerFind on LinkedIn
Start free to see the full management team.
Links open LinkedIn searches, not verified profiles. Team data from our market-data vendor's company profile.
Moneyta sentiment
Where the published evidence leans after the desk debated it, not a rating or a recommendation.
−0.3 on a −2 to +2 scale.
What builds the score
Solid bars are analyst rubric scores; faded bars are computed directly from data. Claims dropped in debate count for nothing; weakened claims count at half weight.
Editor's note
Written after the debate settled. The rest of the page is the evidence behind it.
The surviving record is mixed (evidence balance = Mixed, -0.3 of a possible +2; confidence high). Quarter-to-quarter revenue and profitability metrics climbed across the intervals reported: revenue rose from $ 1,293,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 28 June 2025 to $ 1,320,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 27 September 2025 to $ 1,495,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 4 April 2026 to $ 1,557,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 4 July 2026. Gross profit moved from $ 616,000,000 → $ 634,000,000 → $ 742,000,000 → $ 825,000,000, with gross margin progressing from about 47.7% to about 48.0% to about 49.7% to about 53.0%.
Operating income rose from $ 183,000,000 → $ 183,000,000 → $ 215,000,000 → $ 321,000,000 (operating margin ~ 13.9% → 13.9% → 14.4% → 20.6%), and net income and diluted EPS showed a similar step-up to $ 233,000,000 and $ 4.85 in the fiscal quarter ended 4 July 2026. Shares outstanding and weighted-average diluted shares declined in the period; management executed a $ 300,000,000 cash repurchase recorded in the quarter ended 4 April 2026. Reported long-term debt increased to $ 2,776,000,000 as of 4 July 2026. Valuation and ownership data are intact: TTM FCF $ 340,000,000, price/FCF 55.35, market cap $ 18,498,468,060 (price used $ 391.00), and institutional 13F value reported $ 12.83B as of the period ended 2026-06-30.
How this note was made
every stage ran before the note was writtenAnalyst desk
Mercer, Oakes, Nash, Ellis, Yates, Talbot and Archer. The desk: named AI agents, not people. Each reads one slice of the evidence and nothing else (no outside knowledge, no browsing), so every finding traces to a source you can open.
Reads the XBRL figures companies file with the SEC (revenue, margins, income, debt and share count, quarter by quarter) and reports which way the trend is running.
Revenue rose quarter-to-quarter from $1,293,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 28 June 2025 to $1,320,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 27 September 2025, to $1,495,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 4 April 2026, and to $1,557,000,000 in the fiscal quarter ended 4 July 2026.
XBRL companyfacts · 0001628280-26-052550Gross profit and gross margin expanded over the same sequence: gross profit increased from $616,000,000 (fiscal quarter ended 28 June 2025) to $634,000,000 (fiscal quarter ended 27 September 2025) to $742,000,000 (fiscal quarter ended 4 April 2026) to $825,000,000 (fiscal quarter ended 4 July 2026); expressed against the matching revenues, gross margin rose from about 47.7% to about 48.0% to about 49.7% to about 53.0%.
XBRL companyfacts · 0001628280-26-052550Reads the filings themselves, above all the year-over-year diff of Item 1A risk factors: which risks a company added, dropped or quietly reworded since its last annual report.
Which filings the desk reads
The desk reads the annual 10-K in full: its risk factors, and how they changed since last year. Quarterly 10-Qs and event filings (8-Ks, insider Form 4s) are listed for context but not read line by line: the 10-K is where the material risk disclosures live. A brand-new company, or one we have only just begun tracking, may have no annual report on file yet; its risk analysis fills in once that lands.
In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (filed 2026-02-12), net sales were $5,396 million compared to $4,981 million in fiscal 2024.
10-K filed 2026-02-12In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (filed 2026-02-12), operating income was $700 million compared to $742 million in fiscal 2024, and net income was $419 million, or $8.18 per diluted share, compared to $528 million, or $10.18 per diluted share, in fiscal 2024.
10-K filed 2026-02-12Reads the signal panel above (momentum, volatility, drawdown, relative strength and beta) and ranks each against the whole research universe rather than judging it in isolation.
No computed signal history for this symbol yet — signals need roughly 70 trading days of price history.
Reads which funds hold the name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings, to show the exposure you may already carry through index funds.
As of the reporting period ended 2026-06-30, institutional holders reported a total 13F value of "$12.83B" for the company.
13F holdings · 649 filers · as of 2026-06-30The top five 13F-reported holders as of 2026-06-30 included BlackRock, Inc. ($871.8M), VANGUARD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC ($819.9M), VANGUARD PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LLC ($702.2M), Boston Partners ($689.1M), and STATE STREET CORP ($496.2M).
13F holdings · 649 filers · as of 2026-06-30Reads recent headlines that are genuinely about this company, ignoring rating chatter and market-wide stories. Findings argue in the debate but never move the sentiment score.
An institutional investor, Willis Investment Counsel, increased its stake in the company by 48.7% during the third quarter, owning 25,541 shares after the purchase.
News · thelincolnianonline.com · 2026-10-20Several articles note renewed market attention after a recent share-price move, linking that price action to the company's earnings and revenue profile.
News · simplywall.st · 2026-10-20weakened in debateReads parsed Forms 3/4/5: who bought or sold, at what size, and whether a 10b5-1 plan was involved. Flags clustered open-market officer buying; treats plan sales as routine and never counts a fund or 10%-holder as an officer.
Michael Cho, Chief Strategy Officer, reported an open-market sale of 3,500 shares for a total value of "$1.3M" on 2026-08-07.
Form 4 · Cho Michael (Chief Strategy Officer) · $1.3M sold · 2026-08-07Linda Connly, Director, reported an open-market sale of 500 shares for a total value of "$189k" on 2026-08-10.
Form 4 · Connly Linda (Director) · $189k sold · 2026-08-10Reads the implied-expectations math built from the company's own filings (the growth rate today's price would justify, and the multiples beside it) and argues whether the market's bar looks high or low for this business. Never turns the math into a target.
The modelled implied free cash flow (FCF) growth rate that today's price would justify under the stated discount and terminal assumptions is 35.89%.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeweakened in debateTrailing twelve-month free cash flow (FCF) is $340,000,000 and FCF per share is $7.0643.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeDebate and risk review
A bull and a bear contest the claims and the chair rules on each; the risk review stress-tests what survived.
A bull and a bear argue the analysts' claims across two rounds, then a chair rules on each one. Only what survives feeds the score. The argument is shown, not hidden, so you can judge the reasoning yourself.
Educational and informational view: several contemporaneous operating metrics point to a favorable operational read. Revenue and gross-profit trends show consistent quarter-to-quarter expansion, while gross and operating margins have meaningfully widened, coinciding with rising operating income and a sharp sequential pickup in net income and diluted EPS. The company has been repurchasing shares (cash repurchase disclosed) and reported declining weighted-average diluted shares, which amplifies EPS gains; large institutional ownership and recent positive analyst interest provide additional market context. These internal performance improvements, coupled with the Elo acquisition and stated productivity actions, form a joint factual basis for a bullish interpretation of recent company performance, while remaining an informational assessment rather than a recommendation.
Chair's verdict, claim by claim
Fragility · computed, not argued
balanced0.34
32 surviving claims rest on 15 distinct sources; the heaviest analyst carries 22% of them, and 97% of what the desk raised survived the debate.
The evidence base rests on a moderate number of distinct sources but a fairly concentrated analyst contribution: one analyst authored about one-fifth of surviving claims, so portions of the read are not fully independent. The high debate survival rate (97%) means the desk’s assertions were rarely overturned in review, but because many claims come from a limited set of documents and a single analyst carries outsized weight, the overall read should be treated as informative but somewhat brittle to a small number of new, conflicting filings or market datapoints.
Disconfirming evidence · base rates · falsifiers
Context
Outside consensus, and where this name already sits in your own portfolio.
Third-party consensus shown for context. It never enters Moneyta sentiment. When the two diverge, the debate above is where the why lives.
What this was built from
Every figure on this page traces to one of these. The desk reads only what is listed here (no outside knowledge, no browsing), and each card shows who read it and what it contributed to the score.
10 filings· 2 cited
SEC XBRL filings
Quarterly figures as filed with the SEC, read straight from EDGAR's structured data, not retyped or estimated.
Read by Mercer+0.9 to the score
4 documents· 3 cited
SEC filing documents
The filings themselves, including the year-over-year comparison of Item 1A risk factors.
Read by Oakes−0.2 to the score
2 holdings records· 1 cited
Fund holdings
Which funds hold this name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings.
Read by Ellis+0.8 to the score
8 headlines· 2 cited
News coverage
Recent headlines about this company, rating chatter excluded and nothing published after the report date.
Read by Yatesnothing survived
3 filings· 2 cited
Insider filings
Parsed Forms 3/4/5 from EDGAR: named insiders, share counts, prices, and 10b5-1 plan state, with stated and inferred flags kept apart.
Read by Talbot−0.8 to the score
1 computation
Valuation inputs
TTM cash-flow figures from the company's own XBRL filings, priced with the stored closing price. Implied growth and multiples only; no fair-value dollar figure reaches the desk, by design.
Read by Archercontext only
1 record· 0 cited
Company profile
Sector, industry and company details.
1 record· 0 cited
Analyst consensus
Third-party consensus, shown for context only; it never enters Moneyta sentiment.
Read means we pulled and handed it to an analyst; cited means a claim on this page points at it. Reading twelve quarters to state one trend is normal; the gap is shown rather than hidden.
Written by AI, checked against sources
The analysts, the bull–bear debate and the editor's note are AI agents reading only the evidence listed on this page. They can misread a filing or a headline, which is why every claim cites a source you can open and check yourself. The sentiment score is arithmetic over the claims that survived the debate, not a language model's opinion.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations. Past patterns do not indicate future results.
The full terminal on ZBRA Gold
Who holds it, who's buying, what the Street thinks: live behind the lock, updated as filings land.
Institutional holders
Net institutional flow, Q/Q
Largest holder position
Insider buys, 90 days
Clustered insider value
Street target range
The real figures are for members. Educational analysis, not advice.
Get this for the names you actually hold
Every name in your portfolio, researched the same way, plus the one thing no sample can show: how each one sits inside what you already own.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations.