Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Affirm Holdings, Inc.
How Affirm Holdings, Inc. stacks up
AFRM · against 43 other Financial Services companies of similar size
Growth
95/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #3 of 44 · scores higher than 95% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score6 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including AFRM · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 95?
Weighted metrics compared with all Financial Services companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth, 3-year revenue growth and revenue growth, which are stronger than most Financial Services peers.
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 81% of peers. Revenue growth: 32.2% vs peer median 7.4%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 93% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 39.0% vs peer median 10.0%
- faster growth in earnings per share: stronger than 99% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 3556.8% vs peer median 10.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = AFRM, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | AFRM | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 45 reported | 32.2% | 12.2% | 84% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 39 reported | 3556.8% | 18.1% | 100% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 42 reported | 39.0% | 10.0% | 98% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around AFRM| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16.5B GBP (≈$21.4B) | 99 | 41 | |
| 2 | 226.5B SEK (≈$22.7B) | 98 | 87 | |
| 3 | 24.3B USD | 95 | 67 | |
| 4 | 18.9B USD | 94 | 56 | |
| 5 | 1.49T INR (≈$17.9B) | 93 | 71 | |
| 6 | 1.01T INR (≈$12.2B) | 91 | 84 | |
| 7 | 16.4B USD | 84 | 54 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score