RPAY vs SQ Stock Comparison
Compare RPAY and SQ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RPAY and SQ?
SQ leads the current stock comparison as Block, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Repay Holdings Corporation vs Block, Inc.
SQ leads
SQ leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors RPAY on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support SQ.
Repay Holdings Corporation
Block, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SQ over RPAY, 49 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. SQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while RPAY holds the stronger value profile. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors RPAY. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Repay Holdings Corporation and Block, 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 RPAY and SQ 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.
- Risk Resilience25 vs 57SQ +32
- Value75 vs 46RPAY +29
- Quality35 vs 48SQ +13
2 of 5 evidence groups favor SQ. SQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; RPAY 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 -6
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
SQ's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RPAY and SQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SQ (Block, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
RPAY (Repay Holdings Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
SQSQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SQSQ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RPAYRPAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SQSQ on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
RPAYRPAY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SQ, analyst targets favor RPAY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RPAY | SQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.7% | +16.4% | RPAY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.7% | +21.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 6 | 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 5 covered evidence groups favor SQ. 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 | 46 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | SQon balance | revenue growth 24.6% vs 9.3%; EPS growth -8.3% vs 128.8%; TTM ROE -32.6% vs 1.6%; gross margin 73.5% vs 46.4%; operating margin -3.1% vs 10.2% — SQ takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RPAY | Value 75 vs 46 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | SQ | Risk Resilience 25 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | RPAY | Target upside 24.7% vs 16.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RPAY and SQ 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)
- Only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 SQ.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SQ +3
- 46 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- RPAY +3
- 52 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- SQ +3
- 46 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- RPAY +7
- 56 vs 49
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when SQ moved ahead of RPAY.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.99%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
RPAY 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 0%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1RPAY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQ's edge.
- 2RPAY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3SQ 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
SQ leads on balance| Metric | RPAY | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.6% | 9.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | 128.8% |
| Gross margin | 73.5% | 46.4% |
| Operating margin | -3.1% | 10.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -32.6% | 1.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.64 | 0.3 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | RPAY | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.3% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.3% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.4% | — |
| Year to date | -2.5% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -39.9% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | RPAY | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.3 | — |
| ADX (14) | 11.3 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | -8% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.8% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.3% | — |
Risk
SQ is the more resilient| Metric | RPAY | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.62 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.42 | — |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | — |
| Max drawdown | -59.7% | — |
| Current drawdown | -40.3% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 72.6% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.5% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RPAY or SQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against RPAY's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. RPAY 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 RPAY or SQ the better buy right now?
SQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 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 SQ over RPAY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SQ leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; RPAY leads Value by 29 points; SQ leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RPAY or SQ?
Analyst price targets imply +24.7% upside for RPAY and +16.4% for SQ, so the Street currently favors RPAY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SQ. 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, RPAY or SQ?
RPAY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RPAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, RPAY or SQ?
SQ 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, RPAY or SQ?
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, RPAY or SQ?
SQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SQ on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 RPAY more profitable than SQ?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.5% vs 46.4%; operating margin -3.1% vs 10.2%; ttm roe -32.6% vs 1.6%. RPAY leads on one measure and SQ 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 SQ's lead over RPAY getting stronger or weaker?
SQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when SQ moved ahead of RPAY.
What would change the RPAY vs SQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RPAY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQ's edge; RPAY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; SQ 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 RPAY and SQ?
RPAY: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SQ: 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 RPAY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare RPAY and SQ 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.