AFRM vs FLYW Stock Comparison
Compare AFRM and FLYW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AFRM and FLYW?
AFRM leads the current stock comparison as Affirm Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Affirm Holdings, Inc. vs Flywire Corp
AFRM leads
AFRM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from FLYW.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AFRM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Affirm Holdings, Inc.
Flywire Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AFRM over FLYW, 47 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. AFRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while FLYW holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AFRM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AFRM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. AFRM lead: Reversed — FLYW led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AFRM now leads by 1.
Compare Affirm Holdings, Inc. and Flywire Corp 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 FLYW 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 56FLYW +28
- Quality73 vs 60AFRM +13
- Value42 vs 35AFRM +7
- Momentum33 vs 38FLYW +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AFRM. AFRM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; FLYW keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +1
No new signals fired.
AFRM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFRM and FLYW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AFRM (Affirm Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
FLYW (Flywire Corp): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, technicals.
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
AFRMAFRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AFRMAFRM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AFRMAFRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
FLYWFLYW on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
FLYWFLYW on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
AFRMAFRM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AFRM | FLYW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.3% | +13.5% | AFRM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48% | +44.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AFRM. 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 46 |
| Fundamentals | AFRM | revenue growth 4.9% vs -10.8%; EPS growth 14.4% vs -170%; TTM ROE 47.9% vs 4.1%; gross margin 68.1% vs 57.5%; operating margin 15.5% vs 5.5% |
| Valuation | AFRM | Value 42 vs 35 |
| Technicals | FLYW | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs 19.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FLYW | Risk Resilience 28 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | AFRM | Target upside 31.3% vs 13.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFRM and FLYW 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 AFRM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AFRM lead: Reversed — FLYW led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AFRM now leads by 1.
- Today
- AFRM +1
- 47 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- FLYW +3
- 50 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- FLYW +15
- 41 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- FLYW +12
- 44 vs 56
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when AFRM moved ahead of FLYW.
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%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (21.15%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
AFRM 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 +0.68%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1FLYW closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFRM's edge.
- 2FLYW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AFRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
AFRM leads on balance| Metric | AFRM | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.9% | -10.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.4% | -170% |
| Gross margin | 68.1% | 57.5% |
| Operating margin | 15.5% | 5.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 47.9% | 4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.79 | 0 |
Performance
FLYW leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AFRM | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.2% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.4% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.2% | 24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.9% | 36.6% |
| Year to date | -8.7% | 25.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -20.8% | 35.4% |
Technicals
FLYW has the stronger structure| Metric | AFRM | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 38.2 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | 19.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57% | 38.2% |
Risk
FLYW is the more resilient| Metric | AFRM | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.56 | 1.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | 1.37 |
| Max drawdown | -53.9% | -28.2% |
| Current drawdown | -26.2% | -9.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 60% | 46.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFRM or FLYW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AFRM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against FLYW's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. FLYW is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FLYW the better buy right now?
AFRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AFRM over FLYW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FLYW leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; AFRM leads Quality by 13 points; AFRM leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFRM or FLYW?
Analyst price targets imply +31.3% upside for AFRM and +13.5% for FLYW, so the Street currently favors AFRM. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AFRM or FLYW?
AFRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AFRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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 FLYW?
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 FLYW?
FLYW on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 FLYW?
FLYW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FLYW on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 FLYW?
AFRM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 68.1% vs 57.5%; operating margin 15.5% vs 5.5%; ttm roe 47.9% vs 4.1%.
Is AFRM's lead over FLYW getting stronger or weaker?
AFRM lead: Reversed — FLYW led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AFRM now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when AFRM moved ahead of FLYW.
What would change the AFRM vs FLYW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FLYW closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFRM's edge; FLYW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AFRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AFRM and FLYW?
AFRM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FLYW: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 FLYW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AFRM and FLYW 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.