Affirm vs Enova International
AFRM and ENVA side by side, both in personal credit institutions. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AFRM and ENVA compare
Affirm is the larger company, worth 5.7 times as much as Enova International ($24.8B against $4.3B).
On earnings, Enova International is cheaper: it trades at 12.9× trailing earnings, against 13.3× for Affirm.
Affirm grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.2% versus 17.7% for Enova International).
Affirm keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 45.3% compared with 10.3% at Enova International.
Enova International scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 7 for Affirm), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AFRM | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $24.8B | $4.3B |
| Share price | $73.47 | $174.09 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.1% | 43.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.3% | 330% |
| Beta (5Y) | 3.35 | 1.39 |
| Employees | 2,358 | 1,836 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 9 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.3× | 12.9× (better) |
| P/S | 5.8× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 4.5× | 2.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 32.2× | 4.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 25.0× | 2.2× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.56 |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 45.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $15.46 | $216.23 |
| Margin of safety | −375% | 19.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 32.2% (better) | 17.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 37.4% (better) | 23.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 3598% (better) | 38.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 3587% (better) | 43.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −0.31% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 59.8% |
| Operating margin | 9.8% | 24.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 45.3% (better) | 10.3% |
| FCF margin | 23.3% | 56.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 45.1% (better) | 26.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.0% | 50.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 0.9× | 2.3× (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.70 | 1.74 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 3.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 77.1% | 94.7% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 5.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$84.2M | −$59.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.4% | 8.0% |
Go deeper
- AFRM stock overview
- AFRM income statement
- AFRM valuation and score
- ENVA stock overview
- ENVA income statement
- ENVA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.