Credit Acceptance vs Enova International
CACC 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 CACC and ENVA compare
Credit Acceptance is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Enova International ($5.1B against $4.2B).
On earnings, Enova International is cheaper: it trades at 11.7× trailing earnings, against 16.5× for Credit Acceptance.
Enova International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.1% versus 1.7% for Credit Acceptance).
Credit Acceptance keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.4% compared with 10.5% at Enova International.
Enova International scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 4 for Credit Acceptance), 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 | CACC | ENVA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.1B | $4.2B |
| Share price | $504.63 | $169.85 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.4% | 31.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −21.4% | 329% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.29 | 1.38 |
| Employees | 2,314 | 1,836 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.5× | 11.7× (better) |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 3.7× | 2.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 4.4× |
| P/FCF | 4.1× | 2.1× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.51 |
| FCF yield | 24.6% | 48.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $493.27 | $235.09 |
| Margin of safety | −2.3% | 27.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.7% | 20.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.8% | 23.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −25.7% | 30.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −18.9% | 33.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.2% (better) | −0.31% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 60.6% |
| Operating margin | – | 24.0% |
| Net margin | 14.4% (better) | 10.5% |
| FCF margin | 53.6% | 54.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 22.7% | 26.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 50.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | – | 2.3× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.81 | 1.68 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 11.1% (better) | 3.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 11.1% (better) | 3.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.0% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 54.3% | 5.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$85.1M | −$72.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 21.4% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- CACC stock overview
- CACC income statement
- CACC valuation and score
- ENVA stock overview
- ENVA income statement
- ENVA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.