PYPL vs AXP Stock Comparison
PayPal Holdings, Inc. vs American Express Company
PYPL leads
PYPL leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AXP on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PYPL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
PayPal Holdings, Inc.
American Express Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PYPL over AXP, 52 versus 50 as of Sep 2, 2026. PYPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while AXP holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PYPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AXP. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PYPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PYPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare PayPal Holdings, Inc. and American Express Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Risk Resilience15%46 vs 74AXP +28
- Value30%63 vs 39PYPL +24
- Quality30%64 vs 68AXP +4
- Momentum25%29 vs 27Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PYPL. PYPL’s edge is concentrated in value; AXP keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
PYPL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PYPL and AXP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PYPL (PayPal Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
AXP (American Express Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
PYPLPYPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
AXPAXP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PYPLPYPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AXPAXP on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
AXPAXP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PYPL, analyst targets favor AXP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PYPL | AXP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2% | +12.6% | AXP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.7% | +27% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 11 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PYPL. 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 | 52 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | AXPon balance | revenue growth 3.9% vs 3.4%; EPS growth 3.3% vs 6.1%; ROE 24.4% vs 34.1%; gross margin 45.8% vs 84.3%; operating margin 18.8% vs 27.2% — AXP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PYPL | Value 63 vs 39 |
| Technicals | PYPL | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs -3.9%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AXP | Risk Resilience 46 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | AXP | Target upside -2% vs 12.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PYPL and AXP 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 PYPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1PYPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PYPL +2
- 52 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- PYPL +15
- 66 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- PYPL +11
- 65 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- AXP +3
- 60 vs 63
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 6 when AXP 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.49%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.40%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PYPL 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 +3.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.54%, 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.
- 1AXP closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to PYPL's edge.
- 2AXP's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PYPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate PYPL's advantage entirely.
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
AXP leads on balance| Metric | PYPL | AXP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.3% | 6.1% |
| Gross margin | 45.8% | 84.3% |
| Operating margin | 18.8% | 27.2% |
| Return on equity | 24.4% | 34.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.72 | 1.72 |
Technicals
PYPL has the stronger structure| Metric | PYPL | AXP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 35.7 |
| ADX (14) | 49.5 | 10.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | -3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51% | 16.1% |
Risk
AXP is the more resilient| Metric | PYPL | AXP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.09 | 0.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.52 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.62 | 0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -48.7% | -24.1% |
| Current drawdown | -30.8% | -14.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.7% | 26.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PYPL or AXP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PYPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 52 against AXP's 50. The edge comes from value. AXP 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 PYPL or AXP the better buy right now?
PYPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PYPL over AXP?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AXP leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; PYPL leads Value by 24 points; AXP leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PYPL or AXP?
Analyst price targets imply -2% upside for PYPL and +12.6% for AXP, so the Street currently favors AXP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PYPL. 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, PYPL or AXP?
PYPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PYPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, PYPL or AXP?
AXP 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, PYPL or AXP?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, PYPL or AXP?
AXP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AXP on Risk Resilience, by 28 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PYPL more profitable than AXP?
AXP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.8% vs 84.3%; operating margin 18.8% vs 27.2%; roe 24.4% vs 34.1%.
Is PYPL's lead over AXP getting stronger or weaker?
PYPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-06, when AXP moved ahead of PYPL.
What would change the PYPL vs AXP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AXP closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to PYPL's edge; AXP's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PYPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate PYPL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about PYPL and AXP?
PYPL: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AXP: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 PYPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On AXP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PYPL and AXP with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.