DAVE vs WU Stock Comparison
Compare DAVE and WU across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DAVE and WU?
DAVE leads the current stock comparison as Dave Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Dave Inc. vs The Western Union Company
DAVE leads
DAVE leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from WU.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support DAVE, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Dave Inc.
The Western Union Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DAVE over WU, 66 versus 58 as of Sep 6, 2026. DAVE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while WU holds the stronger risk resilience profile. DAVE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DAVE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. DAVE lead: Reversed — WU led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DAVE now leads by 8.
Compare Dave 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 DAVE 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%86 vs 42DAVE +44
- Risk Resilience15%31 vs 59WU +28
- Quality30%81 vs 55DAVE +26
- Value30%52 vs 74WU +22
4 of 6 evidence groups favor DAVE. DAVE’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; WU keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
DAVE's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DAVE and WU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DAVE (Dave Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
WU (The Western Union Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
DAVEDAVE 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 22 points.
Momentum
DAVEDAVE on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
WUWU on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
DAVEDAVE 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 | DAVE | WU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.2% | -2.5% | DAVE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +44.1% | +28.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 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 DAVE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DAVE | 66 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | DAVEon balance | revenue growth 7.8% vs 3.1%; EPS growth -87.7% vs 19%; TTM ROE 84.4% vs 42.6%; gross margin 83.3% vs 33%; operating margin 34.5% vs 16.2% — DAVE takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WU | Value 52 vs 74 |
| Technicals | DAVE | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day 46.4% vs -16.9% |
| Risk Resilience | WU | Risk Resilience 31 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | DAVE | Target upside 4.2% vs -2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DAVE 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 DAVE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5DAVE lead: Reversed — WU led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DAVE now leads by 8.
- Today
- DAVE +8
- 66 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- DAVE +7
- 65 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- WU +4
- 50 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- DAVE +8
- 70 vs 62
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when DAVE 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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (45.56%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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
WU is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -2.6%, 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to DAVE's edge.
- 2WU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DAVE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
DAVE leads on balance| Metric | DAVE | WU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.8% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -87.7% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 83.3% | 33% |
| Operating margin | 34.5% | 16.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 84.4% | 42.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.29 | 2.95 |
Performance
DAVE leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DAVE | WU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 19.7% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 47.4% | -4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 75.2% | -26.3% |
| Year to date | 71.9% | -22.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 85.9% | -17.7% |
Technicals
DAVE has the stronger structure| Metric | DAVE | WU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.7 | 50 |
| ADX (14) | 13.7 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 46.4% | -16.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 64% | 28.1% |
Risk
WU is the more resilient| Metric | DAVE | WU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.52 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.24 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.89 | -0.59 |
| Max drawdown | -37.9% | -38.1% |
| Current drawdown | -14% | -30.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 70.7% | 37.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.6% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DAVE or WU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DAVE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 66 against WU's 58. The edge comes from momentum and quality. WU is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 DAVE or WU the better buy right now?
DAVE 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DAVE over WU?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. DAVE leads Momentum by 44 points; WU leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; DAVE leads Quality by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DAVE or WU?
Analyst price targets imply +4.2% upside for DAVE and -2.5% for WU, so the Street currently favors DAVE. 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, DAVE or WU?
WU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, DAVE 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, DAVE or WU?
DAVE on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, DAVE or WU?
WU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WU on Risk Resilience, by 28 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is DAVE more profitable than WU?
DAVE leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 83.3% vs 33%; operating margin 34.5% vs 16.2%; ttm roe 84.4% vs 42.6%.
Is DAVE's lead over WU getting stronger or weaker?
DAVE lead: Reversed — WU led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DAVE now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when DAVE moved ahead of WU.
What would change the DAVE 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to DAVE's edge; WU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DAVE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about DAVE and WU?
DAVE: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 DAVE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare DAVE 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.