Enova International vs Happen
ENVA and HAPN side by side, both in personal credit institutions. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ENVA and HAPN compare
Enova International is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Happen ($4.2B against $1.8B).
On earnings, Happen is cheaper: it trades at 8.8× trailing earnings, against 11.8× for Enova International.
Enova International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.1% versus 10.0% for Happen).
Happen keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.2% compared with 10.5% at Enova International.
Enova International scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 8 for Happen), 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 | ENVA | HAPN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.2B | $1.8B |
| Share price | $171.16 | $15.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 34.7% | −16.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 333% | −59.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.38 | 1.75 |
| Employees | 1,836 | 1,075 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.8× | 8.8× (better) |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | 2.7× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 2.1× | – |
| PEG | 0.51 | – |
| FCF yield | 47.9% (better) | −159% |
| Fair value | $236.94 | $24.61 |
| Margin of safety | 27.8% | 36.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.1% (better) | 10.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 23.8% | 25.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 30.5% | 103% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 33.4% | 103% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.31% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% | – |
| Operating margin | 24.0% | – |
| Net margin | 10.5% | 20.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 54.9% (better) | −275% |
| Return on equity | 26.8% (better) | 13.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 50.4% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 2.3× | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.68 (better) | 0.17 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 3.4% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.4% | 90.5% |
| Held by insiders | 5.4% | 2.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$72.4M | −$9.4M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.3% | 5.9% |
Go deeper
- ENVA stock overview
- ENVA income statement
- ENVA valuation and score
- HAPN stock overview
- HAPN income statement
- HAPN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.