LC vs OPRT Stock Comparison
Compare LC and OPRT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LC and OPRT?
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
LendingClub Corporation vs Oportun Financial Corporation
LC leads
LC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LC, and its lead is widening.
LendingClub Corporation
Oportun Financial Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LC over OPRT, 65 versus 56 as of Sep 11, 2026. LC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while OPRT holds the stronger value profile. LC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability. LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare LendingClub Corporation and Oportun Financial 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 LC and OPRT 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.
- Quality73 vs 35LC +38
- Risk Resilience67 vs 45LC +22
- Value57 vs 73OPRT +16
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LC. LC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; OPRT 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
LC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LC and OPRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LC (LendingClub Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
OPRT (Oportun Financial Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
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
OPRTOPRT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OPRTOPRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LCLC on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 | LC | OPRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.1% | +1.7% | LC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 65 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | LCon balance | revenue growth 3% vs 63.3%; EPS growth 11.1% vs 240%; TTM ROE 12.9% vs 4.9%; gross margin 71.1% vs 70.2%; operating margin 18.2% vs 5.8% — LC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OPRT | Value 57 vs 73 |
| Technicals | OPRT | Price vs 50-day 13.7% vs 17.8%; vs 200-day 12.9% vs 36.8% |
| Risk Resilience | LC | Risk Resilience 67 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | LC | Target upside 17.1% vs 1.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LC and OPRT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 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 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LC +9
- 65 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- LC +10
- 66 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- LC +5
- 63 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- LC +5
- 63 vs 58
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
No active signals
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.30%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
OPRT 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.74%, 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.
- 1OPRT closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to LC's edge.
- 2OPRT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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 | LC | OPRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3% | 63.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.1% | 240% |
| Gross margin | 71.1% | 70.2% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% | 5.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.9% | 4.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 6.54 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LC | OPRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21% | 1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 38.7% | 56.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.2% | 57.4% |
| Year to date | 1.4% | 44.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 74% | 14.8% |
Technicals
OPRT has the stronger structure| Metric | LC | OPRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.6 | 58.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.1 | 29.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13.7% | 17.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.9% | 36.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 38.4% |
Risk
LC is the more resilient| Metric | LC | OPRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.32 | 1.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.63 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.88 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -38.3% | -41.8% |
| Current drawdown | -11% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.3% | 65.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LC or OPRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against OPRT's 56. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. OPRT 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 LC or OPRT the better buy right now?
LC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LC over OPRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LC leads Quality by 38 points; LC leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; OPRT leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LC or OPRT?
Analyst price targets imply +17.1% upside for LC and +1.7% for OPRT, 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, LC or OPRT?
OPRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OPRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, LC or OPRT?
OPRT 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, LC or OPRT?
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, LC or OPRT?
LC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LC on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 LC more profitable than OPRT?
LC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 71.1% vs 70.2%; operating margin 18.2% vs 5.8%; ttm roe 12.9% vs 4.9%.
Is LC's lead over OPRT getting stronger or weaker?
LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LC vs OPRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OPRT closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to LC's edge; OPRT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 LC and OPRT?
LC: No active signals. OPRT: 3 bullish / 1 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. On OPRT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LC and OPRT 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.