CPAY vs WU Stock Comparison
Compare CPAY and WU across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CPAY and WU?
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 The Western Union Company
CPAY leads
CPAY leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CPAY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Corpay, Inc.
The Western Union Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CPAY over WU, 62 versus 58 as of Sep 6, 2026. CPAY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while WU holds the stronger value profile. CPAY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPAY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. CPAY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Corpay, Inc. and The Western Union Company 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 WU 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.
- Momentum25%65 vs 42CPAY +23
- Value30%65 vs 74WU +9
- Quality30%60 vs 55CPAY +5
- Risk Resilience15%58 vs 59Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CPAY. CPAY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; WU keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CPAY's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPAY and WU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CPAY (Corpay, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
WU (The Western Union Company): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
WUWU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WUWU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
CPAYCPAY on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
CPAYCPAY carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CPAYCPAY 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 | CPAY | WU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.7% | -2.5% | CPAY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33% | +28.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 | 62 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | CPAYon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 3.1%; EPS growth -27% vs 19%; TTM ROE 30.4% vs 42.6%; gross margin 73.3% vs 33%; operating margin 40.8% vs 16.2% — CPAY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WU | Value 65 vs 74 |
| Technicals | CPAY | Price vs 50-day 8.3% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day 23.6% vs -16.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 58 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CPAY | Target upside 7.7% vs -2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CPAY and WU 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CPAY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CPAY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CPAY +4
- 62 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CPAY +1
- 59 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- CPAY +12
- 66 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- WU +2
- 60 vs 62
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 20 when CPAY moved ahead of WU.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.09%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.71%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, 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 -0.79%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.97%, 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.
- 1WU closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge.
- 2WU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CPAY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CPAY'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
CPAY leads on balance| Metric | CPAY | WU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 73.3% | 33% |
| Operating margin | 40.8% | 16.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.4% | 42.6% |
| Debt to equity | 3 | 2.95 |
Performance
CPAY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CPAY | WU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.8% | -4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 32.4% | -26.3% |
| Year to date | 38.4% | -22.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.4% | -17.7% |
Technicals
CPAY has the stronger structure| Metric | CPAY | WU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.6 | 50 |
| ADX (14) | 34.3 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.3% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 23.6% | -16.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.6% | 28.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CPAY | WU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | -0.59 |
| Max drawdown | -20.3% | -38.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -30.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.2% | 37.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPAY or WU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CPAY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 62 against WU's 58. The edge comes from momentum and quality. WU is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CPAY or WU the better buy right now?
CPAY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CPAY over WU?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CPAY leads Momentum by 23 points; WU leads Value by 9 points; CPAY leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CPAY or WU?
Analyst price targets imply +7.7% upside for CPAY and -2.5% for WU, so the Street currently favors CPAY. 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, CPAY or WU?
WU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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 WU?
WU 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 WU?
CPAY on the Momentum factor, by 23 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 WU?
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. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CPAY more profitable than WU?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.3% vs 33%; operating margin 40.8% vs 16.2%; ttm roe 30.4% vs 42.6%. CPAY leads on two measures and WU 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 WU getting stronger or weaker?
CPAY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-20, when CPAY moved ahead of WU.
What would change the CPAY vs WU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WU closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPAY's edge; WU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CPAY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CPAY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CPAY and WU?
CPAY: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WU: 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 WU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CPAY and WU with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.