NU vs PAGS Stock Comparison
PAGS currently leads NU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 36. The clearest difference is value, while NU has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between NU and PAGS?
PAGS leads the current stock comparison as PagSeguro Digital Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Nu Holdings Ltd. vs PagSeguro Digital Ltd.
PAGS leads
PAGS leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors NU on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PAGS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Nu Holdings Ltd.
PagSeguro Digital Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PAGS over NU, 45 versus 36 as of Oct 31, 2026. PAGS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while NU holds the stronger quality profile. PAGS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NU. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PAGS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PAGS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Nu Holdings Ltd. and PagSeguro Digital Ltd. 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 NU and PAGS 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.
- Value34 vs 75PAGS +41
- Quality50 vs 38NU +12
- Risk Resilience31 vs 35PAGS +4
- Momentum24 vs 24Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PAGS. PAGS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; NU keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
PAGS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NU and PAGS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PAGS (PagSeguro Digital Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
NU (Nu Holdings Ltd.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
PAGSPAGS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NUNU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PAGSPAGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
PAGSPAGS on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
NUNU on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PAGS, analyst targets favor NU. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NU | PAGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +47% | +42.3% | NU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.9% | +18.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PAGS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PAGS | 36 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | NUon balance | revenue growth 10.8% vs 4%; EPS growth 22.2% vs 2.6%; TTM ROE 30.3% vs 14.6%; gross margin 44% vs 51.3%; operating margin 22.6% vs 37.8% — NU takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PAGS | Value 34 vs 75 |
| Technicals | PAGS | Price vs 50-day -19.5% vs -18.5%; vs 200-day -17.5% vs -14.6% |
| Risk Resilience | PAGS | Risk Resilience 31 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | NU | Target upside 47% vs 42.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NU and PAGS 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 lead has been steady session to session. (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 PAGS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28PAGS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PAGS +9
- 36 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- PAGS +11
- 46 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- PAGS +8
- 49 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- NU +9
- 59 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when PAGS moved ahead of NU.
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.
NU and PAGS carry the same 8 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, BB Lower Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
PAGS 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.65%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.61%, 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.
- 1NU closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to PAGS's edge.
- 2NU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PAGS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 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
NU leads on balance| Metric | NU | PAGS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.8% | 4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.2% | 2.6% |
| Gross margin | 44% | 51.3% |
| Operating margin | 22.6% | 37.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.3% | 14.6% |
| Debt to equity | 3.17 | 3.1 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | NU | PAGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -13.2% | -16.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | -8.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.4% | -17.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.7% | -17.3% |
| Year to date | -28.5% | -12.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24% | -14.4% |
Technicals
PAGS has the stronger structure| Metric | NU | PAGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.3 | 28.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20.1 | 33.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -19.5% | -18.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.5% | -14.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 73.8% | 88.7% |
Risk
PAGS is the more resilient| Metric | NU | PAGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.47 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.48 | -0.11 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.62 | -0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -38.2% | -32.1% |
| Current drawdown | -36.2% | -32.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.8% | 54.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NU or PAGS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PAGS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 45 against NU's 36. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. NU is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 NU or PAGS the better buy right now?
PAGS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 PAGS over NU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PAGS leads Value by 41 points; NU leads Quality by 12 points; PAGS leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NU or PAGS?
Analyst price targets imply +47% upside for NU and +42.3% for PAGS, so the Street currently favors NU. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PAGS. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, NU or PAGS?
PAGS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PAGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 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, NU or PAGS?
NU 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, NU or PAGS?
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, NU or PAGS?
PAGS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PAGS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 NU more profitable than PAGS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 44% vs 51.3%; operating margin 22.6% vs 37.8%; ttm roe 30.3% vs 14.6%. NU leads on one measure and PAGS on two measures, 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 PAGS's lead over NU getting stronger or weaker?
PAGS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when PAGS moved ahead of NU.
What would change the NU vs PAGS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NU closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to PAGS's edge; NU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; PAGS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 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 NU and PAGS?
NU: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. PAGS: 2 bullish / 4 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 NU is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On PAGS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NU and PAGS 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.