V vs PYPL Stock Comparison
Visa Inc. vs PayPal Holdings, Inc.
V leads
V leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from PYPL.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support V, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Visa Inc.
PayPal Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors V over PYPL, 62 versus 52 as of Sep 2, 2026. V's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while PYPL holds the stronger value profile. V also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor V today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. V lead: Reversed — PYPL led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; V now leads by 10.
Compare Visa Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. 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.
- Momentum25%73 vs 27V +46
- Value30%25 vs 63PYPL +38
- Quality30%90 vs 64V +26
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 47V +16
5 of 6 evidence groups favor V. V’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; PYPL keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-02, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-01.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
V's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — V and PYPL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
V (Visa Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
PYPL (PayPal Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 50.6% against 20%.
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
VV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PYPLPYPL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PYPLPYPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points.
Momentum
VV on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
VV on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
VV 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 | V | PYPL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.1% | -2.8% | V has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.9% | +52.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 17 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor V. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | V | 62 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Von balance | revenue growth 3.6% vs 3.9%; EPS growth -5.7% vs 3.3%; TTM ROE 61.3% vs 24.4%; gross margin 80.2% vs 45.8%; operating margin 60.7% vs 18.8% — V takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PYPL | Value 25 vs 63 |
| Technicals | V | Price vs 50-day 5% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day 11.8% vs 2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | V | Risk Resilience 63 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | V | Target upside 8.1% vs -2.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of V and PYPL 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 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 V.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 21 – Sep 2V lead: Reversed — PYPL led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; V now leads by 10.
- Today
- V +10
- 62 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- V +11
- 64 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- PYPL +4
- 61 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- V +3
- 64 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when V 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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.10%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.04%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
PYPL 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 +1.54%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.33%, 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.
- 1PYPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to V's edge.
- 2PYPL's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3V's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
V leads on balance| Metric | V | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.6% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.7% | 3.3% |
| Gross margin | 80.2% | 45.8% |
| Operating margin | 60.7% | 18.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 61.3% | 24.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.72 |
Technicals
V has the stronger structure| Metric | V | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.4 | 29.9 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 48.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | 0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.8% | 2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20% | 50.6% |
Risk
V is the more resilient| Metric | V | PYPL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | -0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.32 | -0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -17.4% | -48.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -31.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 43.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, V or PYPL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, V is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 62 against PYPL's 52. The edge comes from momentum and quality. PYPL 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 V or PYPL the better buy right now?
V carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 V over PYPL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. V leads Momentum by 46 points; PYPL leads Value by 38 points; V leads Quality by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, V or PYPL?
Analyst price targets imply +8.1% upside for V and -2.8% for PYPL, so the Street currently favors V. 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, V or PYPL?
PYPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PYPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 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, V or PYPL?
PYPL 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, V or PYPL?
V on the Momentum factor, by 46 points. 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, V or PYPL?
V is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. V on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 V more profitable than PYPL?
V leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 80.2% vs 45.8%; operating margin 60.7% vs 18.8%; ttm roe 61.3% vs 24.4%.
Is V's lead over PYPL getting stronger or weaker?
V lead: Reversed — PYPL led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; V now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-21 and 2026-09-02. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when V moved ahead of PYPL.
What would change the V 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 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to V's edge; PYPL's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; v's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about V and PYPL?
V: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. PYPL: 4 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 V is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PYPL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare V and PYPL 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.