ZWS (ZWS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 4.8 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency for ZWS presents a neutral profile, as the ROIC of 9.3% precisely matches the WACC, resulting in an ROIC-WACC spread of zero and indicating that current operations merely cover their cost of capital without generating excess value. Despite this lack of economic moat in terms of return generation, the balance sheet strength is robust; a Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 signals strong financial health and operational momentum, while an Altman Z-Score of 4.8 confirms low bankruptcy risk. Furthermore, earnings quality appears highly credible given the Beneish M-Score of -2.84, which suggests minimal likelihood of manipulation, even as profitability is driven primarily by a healthy gross margin expansion to 45.1% and sustained net margins at 11.7%.
Valuation metrics suggest significant premium pricing relative to fundamental performance, with a current P/E ratio of 39.5x implying the market expects growth rates that far exceed the reported revenue trajectory of 8.3% year-over-year. This disconnect is further highlighted by the DCF model's fair value estimate of $74; if this target represents a substantial discount to the current trading price, it implies the stock may be overvalued based on intrinsic cash flow assumptions, whereas any premium suggests investors are pricing in accelerated future growth or multiple expansion not yet reflected in earnings. The high valuation multiple appears disconnected from the modest 8.3% revenue growth and flat capital efficiency, creating a scenario where downside protection relies heavily on margin improvement rather than organic top-line acceleration.
Risk assessment reveals no immediate distress signals given the strong Altman score and clean Beneish metrics, yet the equity carries limited Fama-French alpha potential due to the zero spread between returns and cost of capital. The combination of high valuation multiples and stagnant value creation suggests that future shareholder wealth generation will depend entirely on whether management can improve ROIC above the WACC or if market sentiment shifts to accommodate slower growth dynamics. Investors must weigh the safety of a solid balance sheet against the risk of mean reversion in earnings quality given the lack of capital efficiency gains.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 7.3% | 9.3% | 11.3% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $93 | $65 | $50 |
| 3% | $112 | $74 | $55 |
| 4% | $144 | $87 | $61 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=9.3%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $74 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
Balance Sheet Health
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like IJT or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell ZWS shares regardless of ZWS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $579M of passive capital is structurally linked to ZWS through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on ZWS's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in ZWS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If ZWS (ZWS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies SANMINA CORP (SANM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with ZWS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 10 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
ZWS Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest ZWS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 9 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
ZWS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does ZWS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
ZWS converts 85% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 0.0% confirms that reinvested capital creates shareholder value.
Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.
Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History
SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-04 | 41 | $51.28 | $2,102.48 |
| 2026-05-01 | 49,242 | $51.96 | $2.6M |
| 2026-04-30 | 41 | $50.88 | $2,086.08 |
| 2026-04-27 | 3 | $52.47 | $157.41 |
| 2026-04-23 | 63 | $52.48 | $3,306.24 |
| 2026-04-21 | 1,957 | $47.78 | $93,505.46 |
| 2026-04-06 | 30,301 | $45.02 | $1.4M |
| 2026-03-20 | 38,448 | $44.04 | $1.7M |
| 2026-03-17 | 1,081 | $45.19 | $48,850.39 |
| 2026-03-09 | 15,002 | $47.39 | $710,944.78 |
| 2026-03-05 | 49,430 | $50.33 | $2.5M |
| 2026-03-04 | 54 | $50.28 | $2,715.12 |
| 2026-02-27 | 7,278 | $50.96 | $370,886.88 |
| 2026-02-24 | 146 | $49.93 | $7,289.78 |
| 2026-02-06 | 3,512 | $51.11 | $179,498.32 |
| 2026-02-05 | 8,906 | $51.77 | $461,063.62 |
| 2026-02-02 | 143,933 | $46.11 | $6.6M |
| 2026-01-30 | 46,906 | $46.52 | $2.2M |
| 2026-01-22 | 20 | $46.79 | $935.8 |
| 2026-01-12 | 45 | $46.00 | $2,070 |
| 2026-01-05 | 89 | $46.85 | $4,169.65 |
| 2025-12-30 | 13 | $47.77 | $621.01 |
| 2025-12-22 | 57 | $47.50 | $2,707.5 |
| 2025-12-11 | 517 | $46.86 | $24,226.62 |
| 2025-12-05 | 118 | $46.92 | $5,536.56 |
| 2025-11-28 | 82 | $48.13 | $3,946.66 |
| 2025-11-25 | 29,274 | $47.29 | $1.4M |
| 2025-11-19 | 60 | $45.10 | $2,706 |
| 2025-11-17 | 93 | $46.08 | $4,285.44 |
| 2025-11-14 | 93 | $46.39 | $4,314.27 |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Compare ZWS to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: N/A.
SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.