AFRM vs ENVA Stock Comparison
Compare AFRM and ENVA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AFRM and ENVA?
ENVA leads the current stock comparison as Enova International, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Affirm Holdings, Inc. vs Enova International, Inc.
ENVA leads
ENVA leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AFRM on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ENVA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Affirm Holdings, Inc.
Enova International, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ENVA over AFRM, 49 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. ENVA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while AFRM holds the stronger quality profile. ENVA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AFRM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ENVA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ENVA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Affirm Holdings, Inc. and Enova International, 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 ENVA 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 53ENVA +25
- Quality73 vs 56AFRM +17
- Value42 vs 52ENVA +10
- Momentum33 vs 34Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ENVA. ENVA’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 +9
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: ENVA moved ahead of AFRM in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFRM and ENVA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ENVA (Enova International, 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 36.8%.
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
ENVAENVA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AFRMAFRM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ENVAENVA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ENVAENVA on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 ENVA, analyst targets favor AFRM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AFRM | ENVA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.3% | +11.2% | AFRM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48% | +33.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 5 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ENVA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 47 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | ENVAon balance | revenue growth 4.9% vs -43.6%; EPS growth 14.4% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE 47.9% vs 25.8%; gross margin 68.1% vs 74%; operating margin 15.5% vs 27.6% — ENVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ENVA | Value 42 vs 52 |
| Technicals | ENVA | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs -7.3%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs 24.6% |
| Risk Resilience | ENVA | Risk Resilience 28 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AFRM | Target upside 31.3% vs 11.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFRM and ENVA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 ENVA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ENVA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ENVA +2
- 47 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- AFRM +4
- 50 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- ENVA +12
- 41 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- ENVA +16
- 44 vs 60
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when ENVA moved ahead of AFRM.
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%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (34.73%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ENVA 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, AIQ +3 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 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENVA's edge.
- 2AFRM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ENVA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate ENVA'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
ENVA leads on balance| Metric | AFRM | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.9% | -43.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.4% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 68.1% | 74% |
| Operating margin | 15.5% | 27.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 47.9% | 25.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.79 | 3.37 |
Performance
ENVA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AFRM | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.2% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.4% | -14.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.2% | 24% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.9% | 60% |
| Year to date | -8.7% | 41.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -20.8% | 88.4% |
Technicals
ENVA has the stronger structure| Metric | AFRM | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 38.1 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | -7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | 24.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57% | 36.8% |
Risk
ENVA is the more resilient| Metric | AFRM | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.56 | 1.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | 1.69 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | 2.87 |
| Max drawdown | -53.9% | -24.8% |
| Current drawdown | -26.2% | -16% |
| Annualized volatility | 60% | 40.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFRM or ENVA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ENVA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 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 ENVA the better buy right now?
ENVA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ENVA over AFRM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ENVA leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; AFRM leads Quality by 17 points; ENVA leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFRM or ENVA?
Analyst price targets imply +31.3% upside for AFRM and +11.2% for ENVA, so the Street currently favors AFRM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ENVA. 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 ENVA?
ENVA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ENVA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 ENVA?
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 ENVA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 ENVA?
ENVA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ENVA on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 ENVA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.1% vs 74%; operating margin 15.5% vs 27.6%; ttm roe 47.9% vs 25.8%. AFRM leads on one measure and ENVA 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 ENVA's lead over AFRM getting stronger or weaker?
ENVA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when ENVA moved ahead of AFRM.
What would change the AFRM vs ENVA 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 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENVA's edge; AFRM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ENVA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate ENVA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AFRM and ENVA?
AFRM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ENVA: 1 bullish / 2 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 ENVA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AFRM and ENVA 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.