ENVA vs XP Stock Comparison
Compare ENVA and XP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ENVA and XP?
XP leads the current stock comparison as XP Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enova International, Inc. vs XP Inc.
XP leads
XP leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support XP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Enova International, Inc.
XP Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XP over ENVA, 59 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. XP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ENVA holds the stronger risk resilience profile. XP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. XP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Enova International, Inc. and XP Inc. 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 XP 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.
- Momentum34 vs 79XP +45
- Risk Resilience53 vs 43ENVA +10
- Value52 vs 57XP +5
- Quality56 vs 52ENVA +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor XP. XP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ENVA keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
XP'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 XP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XP (XP Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ENVA (Enova International, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
XPXP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
XPXP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
XPXP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
XPXP on the Momentum factor, by 45 points.
Lower downside
ENVAENVA on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ENVA | XP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.2% | +10.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +33.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XP | 49 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | ENVAon balance | revenue growth -43.6% vs 8.2%; EPS growth 15.3% vs 12.5%; TTM ROE 25.8% vs 22.1%; gross margin 74% vs 66.7%; operating margin 27.6% vs 31.8% — ENVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | XP | Value 52 vs 57 |
| Technicals | XP | Price vs 50-day -7.3% vs 16.4%; vs 200-day 24.6% vs 10.6% |
| Risk Resilience | ENVA | Risk Resilience 53 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 11.2% vs 10.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ENVA and XP 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 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XP +10
- 49 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- XP +14
- 46 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 53 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- ENVA +7
- 60 vs 53
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 3 when ENVA moved ahead of XP.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.87%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
XP 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 -0.55%, 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.
- 1ENVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to XP's edge.
- 2ENVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3XP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 | XP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -43.6% | 8.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15.3% | 12.5% |
| Gross margin | 74% | 66.7% |
| Operating margin | 27.6% | 31.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.8% | 22.1% |
| Debt to equity | 3.37 | 3.74 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ENVA | XP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.3% | 24.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24% | 30.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 60% | 0.1% |
| Year to date | 41.9% | 22% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 88.4% | 7.8% |
Technicals
XP has the stronger structure| Metric | ENVA | XP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.1 | 80.8 |
| ADX (14) | 26.9 | 30.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.3% | 16.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.6% | 10.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.8% | 46.2% |
Risk
ENVA is the more resilient| Metric | ENVA | XP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.22 | 1.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.69 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.87 | 0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -24.8% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -16% | -13% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 46.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ENVA or XP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against ENVA's 49. The edge comes from momentum and value. ENVA 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 ENVA or XP the better buy right now?
XP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XP over ENVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XP leads Momentum by 45 points; ENVA leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; XP leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ENVA or XP?
Analyst price targets imply +11.2% upside for ENVA and +10.8% for XP. 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, ENVA or XP?
XP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 XP?
XP 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 XP?
XP on the Momentum factor, by 45 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 XP?
ENVA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ENVA on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 XP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74% vs 66.7%; operating margin 27.6% vs 31.8%; ttm roe 25.8% vs 22.1%. ENVA leads on two measures and XP 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 XP's lead over ENVA getting stronger or weaker?
XP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-03, when ENVA moved ahead of XP.
What would change the ENVA vs XP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ENVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to XP's edge; ENVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; XP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 XP?
ENVA: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. XP: 2 bullish / 2 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 XP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ENVA and XP 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.