CPAY vs ENVA Stock Comparison
Compare CPAY and ENVA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CPAY and ENVA?
CPAY leads the current stock comparison as Corpay, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Corpay, Inc. vs Enova International, Inc.
CPAY leads
CPAY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors ENVA on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CPAY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Corpay, Inc.
Enova International, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CPAY over ENVA, 59 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. CPAY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. CPAY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ENVA. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPAY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CPAY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. CPAY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Corpay, 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 CPAY 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.
- Momentum53 vs 34CPAY +19
- Value65 vs 52CPAY +13
- Risk Resilience58 vs 53CPAY +5
- Quality60 vs 56CPAY +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CPAY. CPAY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No new signals fired.
CPAY's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPAY and ENVA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CPAY (Corpay, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ENVA (Enova International, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 36.8% 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
CPAYCPAY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CPAYCPAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
CPAYCPAY on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
CPAYCPAY on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
ENVAENVA 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 ENVA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CPAY | ENVA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.9% | +11.2% | ENVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33% | +33.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 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
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 | 59 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | CPAYon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs -43.6%; EPS growth -27% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE 30.4% vs 25.8%; gross margin 73.3% vs 74%; operating margin 40.8% vs 27.6% — CPAY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CPAY | Value 65 vs 52 |
| Technicals | CPAY | Price vs 50-day 5% vs -7.3%; vs 200-day 20.5% vs 24.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CPAY | Risk Resilience 58 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | ENVA | Target upside 9.9% vs 11.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CPAY and ENVA 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 CPAY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CPAY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CPAY +10
- 59 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- CPAY +16
- 62 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- CPAY +10
- 63 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- CPAY +2
- 62 vs 60
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 17 when ENVA moved ahead of CPAY.
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.
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
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
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 -0.06%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1ENVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge.
- 2ENVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CPAY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
CPAY leads on balance| Metric | CPAY | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | -43.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 74% |
| Operating margin | 40.8% | 27.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.4% | 25.8% |
| Debt to equity | 3 | 3.37 |
Performance
ENVA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CPAY | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | -14.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17% | 24% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.6% | 60% |
| Year to date | 35.7% | 41.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.1% | 88.4% |
Technicals
CPAY has the stronger structure| Metric | CPAY | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 38.1 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | -7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20.5% | 24.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.8% | 36.8% |
Risk
CPAY is the more resilient| Metric | CPAY | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.8 | 1.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 2.87 |
| Max drawdown | -20.2% | -24.8% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -16% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.2% | 40.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPAY or ENVA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CPAY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against ENVA's 49. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 CPAY or ENVA 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 ENVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CPAY leads Momentum by 19 points; CPAY leads Value by 13 points; CPAY leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. CPAY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ENVA simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CPAY or ENVA?
Analyst price targets imply +9.9% upside for CPAY and +11.2% for ENVA, so the Street currently favors ENVA. 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, CPAY or ENVA?
CPAY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CPAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, CPAY or ENVA?
CPAY 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, CPAY or ENVA?
CPAY on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, CPAY or ENVA?
CPAY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPAY on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 CPAY more profitable than ENVA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.3% vs 74%; operating margin 40.8% vs 27.6%; ttm roe 30.4% vs 25.8%. CPAY leads on two measures and ENVA 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 CPAY's lead over ENVA getting stronger or weaker?
CPAY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-17, when ENVA moved ahead of CPAY.
What would change the CPAY vs ENVA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ENVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge; ENVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CPAY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 CPAY and ENVA?
CPAY: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CPAY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ENVA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CPAY 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.