SYF vs UPST Stock Comparison
Compare SYF and UPST across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SYF and UPST?
SYF leads the current stock comparison as Synchrony Financial, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Synchrony Financial vs Upstart Holdings, Inc.
SYF leads
SYF leads by 26 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 29 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UPST on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support SYF, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Synchrony Financial
Upstart Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SYF over UPST, 59 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. SYF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. SYF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UPST. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SYF today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. SYF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 29 to 26 points over 30 sessions. SYF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Synchrony Financial and Upstart 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 SYF and UPST 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 Resilience69 vs 27SYF +42
- Value67 vs 37SYF +30
- Quality60 vs 38SYF +22
- Momentum44 vs 25SYF +19
5 of 6 evidence groups favor SYF. SYF’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
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 -11
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
SYF's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SYF and UPST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SYF (Synchrony Financial): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
UPST (Upstart Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 55.3% against 28%.
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
SYFSYF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SYFSYF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SYFSYF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
SYFSYF on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
SYFSYF on Risk Resilience, by 42 points.
Analyst upside
UPSTUPST on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SYF, analyst targets favor UPST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SYF | UPST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.2% | +57.6% | UPST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.2% | +52.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 7 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SYF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SYF | 59 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | SYFon balance | EPS growth 14% vs 3.5%; TTM ROE 20.9% vs 7.9%; gross margin 52.3% vs 74.4%; operating margin 24.3% vs 4.2% — SYF takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SYF | Value 67 vs 37 |
| Technicals | SYF | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -14%; vs 200-day 0.3% vs -25.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SYF | Risk Resilience 69 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | UPST | Target upside 16.2% vs 57.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SYF and UPST and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 26 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SYF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SYF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 29 to 26 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SYF +26
- 59 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- SYF +28
- 64 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- SYF +29
- 69 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- SYF +25
- 66 vs 41
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.15%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.89%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
SYF 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.73%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.95%, 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.
- 1UPST closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to SYF's edge.
- 2UPST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SYF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 26-point move would eliminate SYF'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
SYF leads on balance| Metric | SYF | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.6% | -16.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14% | 3.5% |
| Gross margin | 52.3% | 74.4% |
| Operating margin | 24.3% | 4.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.9% | 7.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.97 | 2.54 |
Performance
SYF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SYF | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.8% | -10.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5% | -13.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.5% | -17.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.7% | -8.6% |
| Year to date | -9.6% | -42.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.4% | -63.2% |
Technicals
SYF has the stronger structure| Metric | SYF | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.1 | 31.7 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 14.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -14% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.3% | -25.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 55.3% |
Risk
SYF is the more resilient| Metric | SYF | UPST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.23 | 2.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | -1.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.01 | -1.99 |
| Max drawdown | -27.9% | -64.9% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -63.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.8% | 66.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -7.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SYF or UPST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SYF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against UPST's 33. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 SYF or UPST the better buy right now?
SYF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SYF over UPST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SYF leads Risk Resilience by 42 points; SYF leads Value by 30 points; SYF leads Quality by 22 points. SYF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by UPST simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, SYF or UPST?
Analyst price targets imply +16.2% upside for SYF and +57.6% for UPST, so the Street currently favors UPST. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SYF. 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, SYF or UPST?
SYF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SYF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, SYF or UPST?
SYF 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, SYF or UPST?
SYF on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, SYF or UPST?
SYF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SYF on Risk Resilience, by 42 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 SYF more profitable than UPST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 52.3% vs 74.4%; operating margin 24.3% vs 4.2%; ttm roe 20.9% vs 7.9%. SYF leads on two measures and UPST on one measure, 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 SYF's lead over UPST getting stronger or weaker?
SYF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 29 to 26 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 SYF vs UPST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UPST closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to SYF's edge; UPST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SYF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 26-point move would eliminate SYF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SYF and UPST?
SYF: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UPST: 1 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 SYF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UPST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SYF and UPST 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.