AFRM vs XP Stock Comparison
Compare AFRM and XP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AFRM and XP?
XP leads the current stock comparison as XP Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Affirm Holdings, Inc. vs XP Inc.
XP leads
XP leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors AFRM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support XP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Affirm Holdings, Inc.
XP Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XP over AFRM, 59 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. XP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while AFRM holds the stronger quality profile. XP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AFRM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Affirm Holdings, Inc. and XP 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 XP 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.
- Momentum33 vs 79XP +46
- Quality73 vs 52AFRM +21
- Value42 vs 57XP +15
- Risk Resilience28 vs 43XP +15
4 of 6 evidence groups favor XP. XP’s edge is concentrated in momentum 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: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
XP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AFRM and XP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XP (XP Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
AFRM (Affirm Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 57% against 46.2%.
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
XPXP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XPXP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
XPXP on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
XPXP on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 XP, analyst targets favor AFRM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AFRM | XP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.3% | +10.8% | AFRM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 1 | 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 XP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XP | 47 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | AFRMon balance | revenue growth 4.9% vs 8.2%; EPS growth 14.4% vs 12.5%; TTM ROE 47.9% vs 22.1%; gross margin 68.1% vs 66.7%; operating margin 15.5% vs 31.8% — AFRM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | XP | Value 42 vs 57 |
| Technicals | XP | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs 16.4%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs 10.6% |
| Risk Resilience | XP | Risk Resilience 28 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | AFRM | Target upside 31.3% vs 10.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AFRM and XP 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)
- 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 XP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XP +12
- 47 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- XP +10
- 50 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- XP +12
- 41 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- XP +9
- 44 vs 53
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%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.87%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
XP 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 -0.55%, 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.
- 1AFRM closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to XP's edge.
- 2AFRM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3XP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 | XP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.9% | 8.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.4% | 12.5% |
| Gross margin | 68.1% | 66.7% |
| Operating margin | 15.5% | 31.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 47.9% | 22.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.79 | 3.74 |
Performance
XP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AFRM | XP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.2% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.4% | 24.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.2% | 30.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.9% | 0.1% |
| Year to date | -8.7% | 22% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -20.8% | 7.8% |
Technicals
XP has the stronger structure| Metric | AFRM | XP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 80.8 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 30.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | 16.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | 10.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57% | 46.2% |
Risk
XP is the more resilient| Metric | AFRM | XP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.56 | 1.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | 0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -53.9% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -26.2% | -13% |
| Annualized volatility | 60% | 46.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AFRM or XP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against AFRM's 47. The edge comes from momentum 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 XP the better buy right now?
XP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 XP over AFRM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XP leads Momentum by 46 points; AFRM leads Quality by 21 points; XP leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AFRM or XP?
Analyst price targets imply +31.3% upside for AFRM and +10.8% for XP, so the Street currently favors AFRM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors XP. 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 XP?
XP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 XP?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 XP?
XP on the Momentum factor, by 46 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 XP?
XP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XP on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 XP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.1% vs 66.7%; operating margin 15.5% vs 31.8%; ttm roe 47.9% vs 22.1%. AFRM leads on two measures and XP 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 XP's lead over AFRM getting stronger or weaker?
XP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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 XP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AFRM closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to XP's edge; AFRM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; XP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 XP?
AFRM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. XP: 2 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 XP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AFRM and XP 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.