AFRM vs CPAY Stock Comparison
Compare AFRM and CPAY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AFRM and CPAY?
CPAY leads the current stock comparison as Corpay, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Affirm Holdings, Inc. vs Corpay, Inc.
CPAY leads
CPAY leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AFRM on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CPAY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Affirm Holdings, Inc.
Corpay, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CPAY over AFRM, 59 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. CPAY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while AFRM holds the stronger quality profile. CPAY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AFRM. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPAY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. CPAY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Affirm Holdings, Inc. and Corpay, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare AFRM and CPAY 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.
- Risk Resilience28 vs 58CPAY +30
- Value42 vs 65CPAY +23
- Momentum33 vs 53CPAY +20
- Quality73 vs 60AFRM +13
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CPAY. CPAY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; AFRM keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
CPAY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFRM and CPAY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CPAY (Corpay, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
AFRM (Affirm Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 57% against 24.8%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
CPAYCPAY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AFRMAFRM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CPAYCPAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
CPAYCPAY on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
CPAYCPAY on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
AFRMAFRM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CPAY, analyst targets favor AFRM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AFRM | CPAY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.3% | +9.9% | AFRM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48% | +33% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPAY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CPAY | 47 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | CPAYon balance | revenue growth 4.9% vs 6.2%; EPS growth 14.4% vs -27%; TTM ROE 47.9% vs 30.4%; gross margin 68.1% vs 73.3%; operating margin 15.5% vs 40.8% — CPAY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CPAY | Value 42 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CPAY | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs 5%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs 20.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CPAY | Risk Resilience 28 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | AFRM | Target upside 31.3% vs 9.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFRM and CPAY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 CPAY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CPAY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CPAY +12
- 47 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- CPAY +12
- 50 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- CPAY +22
- 41 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- CPAY +18
- 44 vs 62
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.73%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.66%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.73%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CPAY leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +5.07%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.06%, 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.
- 1AFRM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge.
- 2AFRM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CPAY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate CPAY's advantage entirely.
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
CPAY leads on balance| Metric | AFRM | CPAY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.9% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.4% | -27% |
| Gross margin | 68.1% | 73.3% |
| Operating margin | 15.5% | 40.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 47.9% | 30.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.79 | 3 |
Performance
CPAY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AFRM | CPAY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.2% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.4% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.2% | 17% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.9% | 23.6% |
| Year to date | -8.7% | 35.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -20.8% | 31.1% |
Technicals
CPAY has the stronger structure| Metric | AFRM | CPAY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 32 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | 20.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57% | 24.8% |
Risk
CPAY is the more resilient| Metric | AFRM | CPAY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.56 | 0.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -53.9% | -20.2% |
| Current drawdown | -26.2% | -3.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 60% | 37.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFRM or CPAY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CPAY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against AFRM's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. AFRM is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 AFRM or CPAY the better buy right now?
CPAY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CPAY over AFRM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CPAY leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; CPAY leads Value by 23 points; CPAY leads Momentum by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFRM or CPAY?
Analyst price targets imply +31.3% upside for AFRM and +9.9% for CPAY, so the Street currently favors AFRM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CPAY. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AFRM or CPAY?
CPAY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CPAY 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, AFRM or CPAY?
AFRM on combined revenue and EPS growth. 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, AFRM or CPAY?
CPAY on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, AFRM or CPAY?
CPAY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPAY on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 AFRM more profitable than CPAY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.1% vs 73.3%; operating margin 15.5% vs 40.8%; ttm roe 47.9% vs 30.4%. AFRM leads on one measure and CPAY on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is CPAY's lead over AFRM getting stronger or weaker?
CPAY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AFRM vs CPAY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AFRM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge; AFRM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CPAY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate CPAY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AFRM and CPAY?
AFRM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CPAY: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. 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 AFRM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CPAY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AFRM and CPAY with others
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.