ENVA vs FLYW Stock Comparison
Compare ENVA and FLYW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ENVA and FLYW?
ENVA leads the current stock comparison as Enova International, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enova International, Inc. vs Flywire Corp
ENVA leads
ENVA leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from FLYW. Wall Street currently favors FLYW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ENVA, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Enova International, Inc.
Flywire Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ENVA over FLYW, 49 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. ENVA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while FLYW holds the stronger quality profile. ENVA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FLYW. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ENVA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. ENVA lead: Reversed — FLYW led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ENVA now leads by 3.
Compare Enova International, 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 ENVA 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.
- Value52 vs 35ENVA +17
- Quality56 vs 60FLYW +4
- Momentum34 vs 38FLYW +4
- Risk Resilience53 vs 56Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ENVA. ENVA’s edge is concentrated in value; FLYW 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 +9
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
ENVA's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENVA and FLYW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ENVA (Enova International, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
FLYW (Flywire Corp): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, technicals.
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
ENVAENVA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ENVAENVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ENVAENVA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
FLYWFLYW on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
ENVAENVA 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 ENVA, analyst targets favor FLYW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ENVA | FLYW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.2% | +13.5% | FLYW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.4% | +44.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ENVA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 49 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | ENVAon balance | revenue growth -43.6% vs -10.8%; EPS growth 15.3% vs -170%; TTM ROE 25.8% vs 4.1%; gross margin 74% vs 57.5%; operating margin 27.6% vs 5.5% — ENVA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ENVA | Value 52 vs 35 |
| Technicals | FLYW | Price vs 50-day -7.3% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 24.6% vs 19.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 53 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | FLYW | Target upside 11.2% vs 13.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ENVA and FLYW 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 ENVA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ENVA lead: Reversed — FLYW led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ENVA now leads by 3.
- Today
- ENVA +3
- 49 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- FLYW +7
- 46 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- FLYW +3
- 53 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- ENVA +4
- 60 vs 56
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when FLYW moved ahead of ENVA.
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.
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
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
ENVA 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, AIQ +3 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 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENVA's edge.
- 2FLYW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ENVA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
ENVA leads on balance| Metric | ENVA | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -43.6% | -10.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15.3% | -170% |
| Gross margin | 74% | 57.5% |
| Operating margin | 27.6% | 5.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.8% | 4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 3.37 | 0 |
Performance
ENVA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ENVA | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.3% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24% | 24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 60% | 36.6% |
| Year to date | 41.9% | 25.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 88.4% | 35.4% |
Technicals
FLYW has the stronger structure| Metric | ENVA | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.1 | 38.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.9 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.3% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.6% | 19.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.8% | 38.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ENVA | FLYW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.22 | 1.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.69 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.87 | 1.37 |
| Max drawdown | -24.8% | -28.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16% | -9.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 46.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ENVA or FLYW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ENVA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against FLYW's 46. The edge comes from value. FLYW 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 ENVA or FLYW the better buy right now?
ENVA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ENVA over FLYW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ENVA leads Value by 17 points; FLYW leads Quality by 4 points; FLYW leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ENVA or FLYW?
Analyst price targets imply +11.2% upside for ENVA and +13.5% for FLYW, so the Street currently favors FLYW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ENVA. 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, ENVA or FLYW?
ENVA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ENVA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, ENVA or FLYW?
ENVA 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, ENVA or FLYW?
FLYW on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, ENVA or FLYW?
ENVA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ENVA 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 ENVA more profitable than FLYW?
ENVA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74% vs 57.5%; operating margin 27.6% vs 5.5%; ttm roe 25.8% vs 4.1%.
Is ENVA's lead over FLYW getting stronger or weaker?
ENVA lead: Reversed — FLYW led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ENVA now leads by 3. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when FLYW moved ahead of ENVA.
What would change the ENVA 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 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENVA's edge; FLYW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ENVA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 ENVA and FLYW?
ENVA: 1 bullish / 2 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 ENVA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FLYW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ENVA 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.