GPN vs LC Stock Comparison
Compare GPN and LC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GPN and LC?
LC leads the current stock comparison as LendingClub Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global Payments Inc. vs LendingClub Corporation
LC leads
LC leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support LC, and its lead is widening.
Global Payments Inc.
LendingClub Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LC over GPN, 65 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. LC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GPN holds the stronger value profile. LC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global Payments Inc. and LendingClub Corporation 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 GPN and LC 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.
- Quality44 vs 73LC +29
- Risk Resilience47 vs 67LC +20
- Value65 vs 57GPN +8
5 of 6 evidence groups favor LC. LC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GPN keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
LC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GPN and LC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LC (LendingClub Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GPN (Global Payments Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
LCLC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GPNGPN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GPNGPN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LCLC on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
LCLC 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 | GPN | LC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.5% | +17.1% | LC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.8% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Strong Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LC | 52 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | LCon balance | revenue growth 11.8% vs 3%; EPS growth 100.7% vs 11.1%; TTM ROE -4.1% vs 12.9%; gross margin 63.9% vs 71.1%; operating margin 11.9% vs 18.2% — LC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GPN | Value 65 vs 57 |
| Technicals | LC | Price vs 50-day 3.1% vs 13.7%; vs 200-day 16.6% vs 12.9% |
| Risk Resilience | LC | Risk Resilience 47 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | LC | Target upside 6.5% vs 17.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GPN and LC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 LC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LC +13
- 52 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- LC +9
- 57 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- LC +6
- 57 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- LC +2
- 61 vs 63
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 22 when GPN moved ahead of LC.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.85%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
No active signals
GPN 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.29%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1GPN closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to LC's edge.
- 2GPN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3LC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
LC leads on balance| Metric | GPN | LC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.8% | 3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 100.7% | 11.1% |
| Gross margin | 63.9% | 71.1% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 18.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.1% | 12.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.97 | 0.01 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GPN | LC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.6% | 5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 21% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 39.1% | 38.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 21.6% | 1.2% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 1.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.3% | 74% |
Technicals
LC has the stronger structure| Metric | GPN | LC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.6 | 58.6 |
| ADX (14) | 33.9 | 31.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.1% | 13.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.6% | 12.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.2% | 55.5% |
Risk
LC is the more resilient| Metric | GPN | LC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.1 | 2.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.25 | 0.88 |
| Max drawdown | -29.4% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -6.6% | -11% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.6% | 54.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GPN or LC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against GPN's 52. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GPN is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 GPN or LC the better buy right now?
LC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LC over GPN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LC leads Quality by 29 points; LC leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; GPN leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GPN or LC?
Analyst price targets imply +6.5% upside for GPN and +17.1% for LC, so the Street currently favors LC. 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, GPN or LC?
GPN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GPN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, GPN or LC?
GPN 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, GPN or LC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, GPN or LC?
LC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LC on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 GPN more profitable than LC?
LC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.9% vs 71.1%; operating margin 11.9% vs 18.2%; ttm roe -4.1% vs 12.9%.
Is LC's lead over GPN getting stronger or weaker?
LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 13 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-22, when GPN moved ahead of LC.
What would change the GPN vs LC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GPN closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to LC's edge; GPN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; LC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 GPN and LC?
GPN: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LC: No active signals. 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 GPN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GPN and LC 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.