ENVA vs JPM Stock Comparison
Compare ENVA vs JPM on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between ENVA and JPM?
ENVA and JPM 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 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
ENVA and JPM are effectively level
ENVA and JPM are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Enova International, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate ENVA and JPM as of Oct 31, 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 JPMorgan Chase & Co. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ENVA and JPM 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.
- Risk Resilience44 vs 69JPM +25
- Value61 vs 44ENVA +17
- Momentum44 vs 61JPM +17
- Quality56 vs 46ENVA +10
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
JPM's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENVA and JPM 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
ENVAENVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ENVAENVA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
JPMJPM on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
ENVAENVA 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 | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +47.2% | +10.7% | ENVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.4% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 11 | 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 | 53 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | ENVAon balance | revenue growth 104.4% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 2.1% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 26.4% vs 17.9%; gross margin 76.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 27.4% vs 28.2% — ENVA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ENVA | Value 61 vs 44 |
| Technicals | JPM | Price vs 50-day -11% vs -2%; vs 200-day -2% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 44 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | ENVA | Target upside 47.2% vs 10.7% |
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 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ENVA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 53 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +2
- 48 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- ENVA +11
- 55 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +8
- 44 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 23 when JPM 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ENVA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.70%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.84%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +1 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 | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 104.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.1% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 76.7% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 27.4% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.4% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 3.45 | 3.32 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ENVA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.6% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -29% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 44.2% | 12.9% |
Technicals
JPM has the stronger structure| Metric | ENVA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.1 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.8% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | ENVA | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.33 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -37.8% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -32.3% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 46% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, ENVA or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +47.2% upside for ENVA and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors ENVA. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ENVA or JPM?
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 JPM?
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 JPM?
JPM on the Momentum factor, by 17 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 JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 25 points. 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 JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 76.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 27.4% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 26.4% vs 17.9%. ENVA leads on two measures and JPM 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.
What do the current signals say about ENVA and JPM?
ENVA: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. JPM: 2 bullish / 1 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 ENVA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ENVA and JPM 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.