OPRT vs PYPL Stock Comparison
Compare OPRT and PYPL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between OPRT and PYPL?
OPRT leads the current stock comparison as Oportun Financial Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Oportun Financial Corporation vs PayPal Holdings, Inc.
OPRT leads
OPRT leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PYPL.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support OPRT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Oportun Financial Corporation
PayPal Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors OPRT over PYPL, 56 versus 53 as of Sep 11, 2026. OPRT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while PYPL holds the stronger quality profile. OPRT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor OPRT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. OPRT lead: Reversed — PYPL led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; OPRT now leads by 3.
Compare Oportun Financial Corporation and PayPal Holdings, 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 OPRT and PYPL 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.
- Momentum68 vs 29OPRT +39
- Quality35 vs 64PYPL +29
- Value73 vs 64OPRT +9
- Risk Resilience45 vs 46Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor OPRT. OPRT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; PYPL keeps a meaningful quality 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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
OPRT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OPRT and PYPL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
OPRT (Oportun Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
PYPL (PayPal Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 57% against 38.4%.
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
OPRTOPRT 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 9 points.
Momentum
OPRTOPRT on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
OPRTOPRT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
OPRTOPRT 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 | OPRT | PYPL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.7% | -0.1% | OPRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +52.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 17 | 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 OPRT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | OPRTon balance | revenue growth 63.3% vs 3.9%; EPS growth 240% vs 3.3%; TTM ROE 4.9% vs 24.4%; gross margin 70.2% vs 45.8%; operating margin 5.8% vs 18.8% — OPRT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OPRT | Value 73 vs 64 |
| Technicals | OPRT | Price vs 50-day 17.8% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day 36.8% vs 4.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 45 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | OPRT | Target upside 1.7% vs -0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of OPRT and PYPL 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 OPRT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10OPRT lead: Reversed — PYPL led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; OPRT now leads by 3.
- Today
- OPRT +3
- 56 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- OPRT +2
- 56 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- PYPL +8
- 58 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- PYPL +5
- 58 vs 63
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when OPRT moved ahead of PYPL.
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 (19.30%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.11%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
OPRT 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 +2.74%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.77%, 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.
- 1PYPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to OPRT's edge.
- 2PYPL's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3OPRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
OPRT leads on balance| Metric | OPRT | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 63.3% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 240% | 3.3% |
| Gross margin | 70.2% | 45.8% |
| Operating margin | 5.8% | 18.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.9% | 24.4% |
| Debt to equity | 6.54 | 0.72 |
Performance
OPRT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | OPRT | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.9% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 56.3% | 31% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 57.4% | 17% |
| Year to date | 44.8% | -8.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.8% | -22.1% |
Technicals
OPRT has the stronger structure| Metric | OPRT | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.2 | 29.1 |
| ADX (14) | 29.7 | 35.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 17.8% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 36.8% | 4.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.4% | 57% |
Risk
Split| Metric | OPRT | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.7 | 1.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.9 | -0.48 |
| Max drawdown | -41.8% | -48.7% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -30% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.2% | 44.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, OPRT or PYPL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, OPRT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against PYPL's 53. The edge comes from momentum and value. PYPL 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 OPRT or PYPL the better buy right now?
OPRT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor OPRT over PYPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. OPRT leads Momentum by 39 points; PYPL leads Quality by 29 points; OPRT leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, OPRT or PYPL?
Analyst price targets imply +1.7% upside for OPRT and -0.1% for PYPL, so the Street currently favors OPRT. 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, OPRT or PYPL?
OPRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OPRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, OPRT or PYPL?
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, OPRT or PYPL?
OPRT on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, OPRT or PYPL?
OPRT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. OPRT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is OPRT more profitable than PYPL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.2% vs 45.8%; operating margin 5.8% vs 18.8%; ttm roe 4.9% vs 24.4%. OPRT leads on one measure and PYPL 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 OPRT's lead over PYPL getting stronger or weaker?
OPRT lead: Reversed — PYPL led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; OPRT now leads by 3. 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 2026-09-04, when OPRT moved ahead of PYPL.
What would change the OPRT vs PYPL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PYPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to OPRT's edge; PYPL's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; OPRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 OPRT and PYPL?
OPRT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PYPL: 2 bullish / 2 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. The most decision-relevant rule on OPRT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PYPL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare OPRT and PYPL 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.