CPAY vs FLYW Stock Comparison
Compare CPAY and FLYW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CPAY and FLYW?
CPAY leads the current stock comparison as Corpay, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Corpay, Inc. vs Flywire Corp
CPAY leads
CPAY leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FLYW on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CPAY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Corpay, Inc.
Flywire Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CPAY over FLYW, 59 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. CPAY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. CPAY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FLYW. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPAY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CPAY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Corpay, 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 CPAY 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.
- Value65 vs 35CPAY +30
- Momentum53 vs 38CPAY +15
- Risk Resilience58 vs 56Even
- Quality60 vs 60Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CPAY. CPAY’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
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 +1
No new signals fired.
CPAY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPAY and FLYW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CPAY (Corpay, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
FLYW (Flywire Corp): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 38.2% 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 30 points.
Momentum
CPAYCPAY on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
CPAYCPAY carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FLYWFLYW 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 FLYW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CPAY | FLYW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.9% | +13.5% | FLYW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33% | +44.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 11 | 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 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 46 |
| Fundamentals | CPAY | revenue growth 6.2% vs -10.8%; EPS growth -27% vs -170%; TTM ROE 30.4% vs 4.1%; gross margin 73.3% vs 57.5%; operating margin 40.8% vs 5.5% |
| Valuation | CPAY | Value 65 vs 35 |
| Technicals | CPAY | Price vs 50-day 5% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 20.5% vs 19.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 58 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | FLYW | Target upside 9.9% vs 13.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CPAY and FLYW 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 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CPAY +13
- 59 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- CPAY +9
- 62 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- CPAY +7
- 63 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- CPAY +6
- 62 vs 56
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 1 when CPAY 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.
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
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
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).
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 Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge.
- 2FLYW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | -10.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27% | -170% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 57.5% |
| Operating margin | 40.8% | 5.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.4% | 4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 3 | 0 |
Performance
FLYW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CPAY | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17% | 24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.6% | 36.6% |
| Year to date | 35.7% | 25.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.1% | 35.4% |
Technicals
CPAY has the stronger structure| Metric | CPAY | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 38.2 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20.5% | 19.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.8% | 38.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CPAY | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 1.37 |
| Max drawdown | -20.2% | -28.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -9.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.2% | 46.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPAY or FLYW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CPAY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against FLYW's 46. The edge comes from value 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 CPAY or FLYW the better buy right now?
CPAY 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 CPAY over FLYW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CPAY leads Value by 30 points; CPAY leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CPAY or FLYW?
Analyst price targets imply +9.9% upside for CPAY and +13.5% for FLYW, so the Street currently favors FLYW. 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 FLYW?
CPAY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CPAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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 FLYW?
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 FLYW?
CPAY on the Momentum factor, by 15 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 FLYW?
CPAY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPAY 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 CPAY more profitable than FLYW?
CPAY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 73.3% vs 57.5%; operating margin 40.8% vs 5.5%; ttm roe 30.4% vs 4.1%.
Is CPAY's lead over FLYW getting stronger or weaker?
CPAY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 13 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 2026-07-01, when CPAY moved ahead of FLYW.
What would change the CPAY vs FLYW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FLYW closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge; FLYW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 FLYW?
CPAY: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CPAY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FLYW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CPAY 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.