ENVA vs GRAB Stock Comparison
Compare ENVA and GRAB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ENVA and GRAB?
ENVA and GRAB are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enova International, Inc. vs Grab Holdings Limited
ENVA and GRAB are effectively level
ENVA and GRAB are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Enova International, Inc.
Grab Holdings Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate ENVA and GRAB as of Sep 11, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Enova International, Inc. and Grab Holdings Limited 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 GRAB 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 62GRAB +10
- Momentum34 vs 25ENVA +9
- Quality56 vs 54Even
- Risk Resilience53 vs 53Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
GRAB's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENVA and GRAB both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
GRABGRAB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GRABGRAB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
ENVAENVA on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
ENVAENVA carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GRABGRAB 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 | ENVA | GRAB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.2% | +94.8% | GRAB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.4% | +33.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 49 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | ENVAon balance | revenue growth -43.6% vs 4.4%; EPS growth 15.3% vs 85.8%; TTM ROE 25.8% vs 9%; gross margin 74% vs 43.6%; operating margin 27.6% vs 6.9% — ENVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GRAB | Value 52 vs 62 |
| Technicals | ENVA | Price vs 50-day -7.3% vs -14.9%; vs 200-day 24.6% vs -25% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 53 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | GRAB | Target upside 11.2% vs 94.8% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GRAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 49 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- GRAB +6
- 46 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- GRAB +1
- 53 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- GRAB +1
- 60 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when GRAB 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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.97%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 +1.33%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -43.6% | 4.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15.3% | 85.8% |
| Gross margin | 74% | 43.6% |
| Operating margin | 27.6% | 6.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.8% | 9% |
| Debt to equity | 3.37 | 0.3 |
Performance
ENVA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ENVA | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -11.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.3% | -16.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24% | -8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 60% | -22.6% |
| Year to date | 41.9% | -34.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 88.4% | -41.5% |
Technicals
ENVA has the stronger structure| Metric | ENVA | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.1 | 25 |
| ADX (14) | 26.9 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.3% | -14.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.6% | -25% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.8% | 39.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ENVA | GRAB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.22 | 1.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.69 | -1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.87 | -2.35 |
| Max drawdown | -24.8% | -53.3% |
| Current drawdown | -16% | -53.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 38.3% |
| 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 has more analyst upside, ENVA or GRAB?
Analyst price targets imply +11.2% upside for ENVA and +94.8% for GRAB, so the Street currently favors GRAB. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ENVA or GRAB?
GRAB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GRAB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 GRAB?
GRAB 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 GRAB?
ENVA on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 GRAB?
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 GRAB?
ENVA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74% vs 43.6%; operating margin 27.6% vs 6.9%; ttm roe 25.8% vs 9%.
What do the current signals say about ENVA and GRAB?
ENVA: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. GRAB: 2 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 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 GRAB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ENVA and GRAB 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.