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 5.4 times as much as Enova International ($22.2B against $4.1B).
On earnings, Affirm is cheaper: it trades at 11.4× trailing earnings, against 11.5× for Enova International.
Affirm grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.7% versus 20.1% for Enova International).
Affirm keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 43.9% compared with 10.5% at Enova International.
Enova International scores higher on the StockData Score (10 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 | $22.2B | $4.1B |
| Share price | $65.84 | $167.01 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.4% | 31.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −51.6% | 322% |
| Beta (5Y) | 3.31 | 1.37 |
| Employees | 2,358 | 1,836 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.4× (better) | 11.5× |
| P/S | 4.8× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 3.9× | 2.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.3× | 4.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 27.2× | 2.0× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.50 |
| FCF yield | 3.7% | 49.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $32.80 | $223.65 |
| Margin of safety | −101% | 25.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 32.7% (better) | 20.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 37.4% (better) | 23.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 764% (better) | 30.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 800% (better) | 33.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −0.31% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 60.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 24.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 43.9% (better) | 10.5% |
| FCF margin | 17.8% | 54.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 44.5% (better) | 26.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 19.5% | 50.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 1.1× | 2.3× (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.55 | 1.67 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | 3.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 77.1% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 5.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$89.4M | −$72.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.3% | 7.3% |
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.