AFRM vs UPST Stock Comparison
AFRM currently leads UPST in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 37. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between AFRM and UPST?
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 Upstart Holdings, Inc.
AFRM leads
AFRM leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 24 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UPST on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AFRM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Affirm Holdings, Inc.
Upstart Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AFRM over UPST, 52 versus 37 as of Oct 31, 2026. AFRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. AFRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UPST. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AFRM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. AFRM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Affirm Holdings, Inc. and Upstart Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare AFRM and UPST 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.
- Quality73 vs 38AFRM +35
- Momentum56 vs 42AFRM +14
- Value41 vs 36AFRM +5
- Risk Resilience28 vs 30Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AFRM. AFRM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
AFRM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFRM and UPST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AFRM (Affirm Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
UPST (Upstart Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
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 5 points.
Momentum
AFRMAFRM on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
UPSTUPST carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
UPSTUPST on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AFRM, analyst targets favor UPST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AFRM | UPST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.7% | +69.1% | UPST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.2% | +59.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 8 | 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 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 | AFRM | 52 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | AFRMon balance | revenue growth 4.9% vs -16.5%; EPS growth 14.4% vs 3.5%; TTM ROE 47.9% vs 7.9%; gross margin 68.1% vs 74.4%; operating margin 15.5% vs 4.2% — AFRM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AFRM | Value 41 vs 36 |
| Technicals | AFRM | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs -9.9%; vs 200-day 10.2% vs -19.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 28 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | UPST | Target upside 29.7% vs 69.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFRM and UPST 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30AFRM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AFRM +15
- 52 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- AFRM +12
- 48 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- AFRM +24
- 60 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- AFRM +4
- 40 vs 36
The lead changed hands 14 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when AFRM moved ahead of UPST.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AFRM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.98%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only UPST
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.77%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
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 -1.83%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -7.33%, 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.
- 1UPST closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFRM's edge.
- 2UPST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AFRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate AFRM'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
AFRM leads on balance| Metric | AFRM | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.9% | -16.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.4% | 3.5% |
| Gross margin | 68.1% | 74.4% |
| Operating margin | 15.5% | 4.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 47.9% | 7.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.79 | 2.54 |
Performance
AFRM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AFRM | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.9% | 5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.1% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.5% | -20.8% |
| Year to date | -1.5% | -44.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.7% | -54.2% |
Technicals
AFRM has the stronger structure| Metric | AFRM | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.9 | 49.7 |
| ADX (14) | 10.7 | 10.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | -9.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.2% | -19.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59% | 51.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AFRM | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.57 | 2.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.17 | -0.89 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.29 | -1.42 |
| Max drawdown | -48.8% | -55.1% |
| Current drawdown | -14.5% | -52.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.5% | 64.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -7.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFRM or UPST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AFRM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against UPST's 37. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 UPST the better buy right now?
AFRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 AFRM over UPST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AFRM leads Quality by 35 points; AFRM leads Momentum by 14 points; AFRM leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFRM or UPST?
Analyst price targets imply +29.7% upside for AFRM and +69.1% for UPST, so the Street currently favors UPST. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AFRM. 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 UPST?
AFRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AFRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 UPST?
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 UPST?
AFRM on the Momentum factor, by 14 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 UPST?
UPST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UPST carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 UPST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.1% vs 74.4%; operating margin 15.5% vs 4.2%; ttm roe 47.9% vs 7.9%. AFRM leads on two measures and UPST on one measure, 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 AFRM's lead over UPST getting stronger or weaker?
AFRM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 14 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when AFRM moved ahead of UPST.
What would change the AFRM vs UPST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UPST closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to AFRM's edge; UPST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AFRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate AFRM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AFRM and UPST?
AFRM: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UPST: 1 bullish / 2 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 UPST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AFRM and UPST 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.