DAVE vs UPST vs SOFI vs ENVA vs AFRM

For growth investors, Upstart Holdings, Inc.

(UPST) is the stronger pick with 58. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 18. 6% for Enova International, Inc. (ENVA). Enova International, Inc. (ENVA) offers the better valuation at 14. 9x trailing P/E (10. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Dave Inc. (DAVE) a "Buy" — based on 11 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Enova International, Inc.

(ENVA) is the cheapest at 14. 9x versus Affirm Holdings, Inc. at 449. 1x. On forward P/E, Enova International, Inc. is actually cheaper at 10. 5x.

Over the past 5 years, Enova International, Inc.

(ENVA) delivered a total return of +368. 1%, compared to -69. 8% for Upstart Holdings, Inc. (UPST). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ENVA returned +20. 3% versus AFRM's -30. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Enova International, Inc.

(ENVA) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 48β versus Upstart Holdings, Inc. 's 2. 96β — meaning UPST is approximately 100% more volatile than ENVA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, SoFi Technologies, Inc. (SOFI) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 3% for Enova International, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Upstart Holdings, Inc.

(UPST) is pulling ahead at 58. 9% versus 18. 6% for Enova International, Inc. (ENVA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Dave Inc. grew EPS 222. 9% year-over-year, compared to 0. 0% for SoFi Technologies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, DAVE leads at 35. 7% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Dave Inc.

(DAVE) is the more profitable company, earning 38. 3% net margin versus 1. 6% for Affirm Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 38. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ENVA leads at 23. 5% versus -2. 7% for AFRM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UPST leads at 95. 2%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Enova International, Inc.

(ENVA) trades at 10. 5x forward P/E versus 62. 5x for Affirm Holdings, Inc. — 52. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UPST: 55. 8% to $45. 17.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Enova International, Inc.

(ENVA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. Affirm Holdings, Inc. (AFRM) carries a higher beta of 2. 72 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ENVA: +20. 3%, AFRM: -30. 7%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (DAVE (Technology) and UPST (Financial Services) and SOFI (Financial Services) and ENVA (Financial Services) and AFRM (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.