KD vs LZMH

Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. vs LZ Technology Holdings Limited — Valuation Comparison 2026

KD

Information Technology Services
Kyndryl Holdings, Inc.
Quality
7.2
out of 10
Value Trap
16
SAFE
Price
$11.78
Last close
Models
11/13
Active
VS

LZMH

Information Technology Services
LZ Technology Holdings Limited
Quality
6.0
out of 10
Value Trap
6
SAFE
Price
$1.28
Last close
Models
8/13
Active

Model-by-Model Comparison

ModelType KD Fair ValueKD Upside LZMH Fair ValueLZMH Upside
Bayesian DCF Intrinsic $0.63 -94.7% $0.04 -96.8%
Earnings Power Value Intrinsic $1.44 -87.8% $0.13 +21.1%
EROIC Spread Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
First Chicago Scenario $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Markov DDM Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
ML-RIV Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Dynamic NAV Asset-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
PWERM Option-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Regime Cross-Sectional Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Sentiment SOTP Hybrid $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
CUCE Ensemble Ensemble $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
FTNN Topology Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
RCMH-DCF Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
🔒

Unlock Full 13-Model Comparison

Access all valuation models for KD vs LZMH — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more.

Access Full Analysis — From $27/mo →

KD vs LZMH — Which Stock Is More Undervalued?

KD scores higher with a 7.2/10 quality rating vs LZMH's 6.0/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.

Comparing Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (KD) and LZ Technology Holdings Limited (LZMH) across 13 institutional-grade valuation models reveals how each company's intrinsic value stacks up against its market price. CirclFi's engine processes SEC EDGAR 10-K and 10-Q filings, FRED macroeconomic data, and GDELT news sentiment to generate independent fair value estimates daily.

KD currently trades at $11.78 with a QOC of 7.2/10, while LZMH trades at $1.28 with a QOC of 6.0/10.

Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN Topology), and ensemble methods (CUCE).