Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings (SEZL vs AFRM) 2026: Stock Returns, Risk & Volatility

Q: Which is a better investment: SEZL or AFRM?

Over the past year, SEZL looks like the better investment: it had higher total return (SEZL +66.2% vs AFRM +28.3%) and a higher Sharpe ratio (SEZL 0.96 vs AFRM 0.65). On risk, AFRM was less volatile (AFRM 64.3% vs SEZL 97.3%), AFRM had a smaller max drawdown (AFRM -53.9% vs SEZL -72.0%), and AFRM had less severe losses on the worst 5% of days (Expected Shortfall of AFRM -9.01% vs SEZL -13.15%).

Written by Gale Finance Team

Reviewed by Sid Kalla CFA Charterholder

Quick answer

Which is a better investment: SEZL or AFRM?

Over the past year, SEZL outperformed AFRM. SEZL returned +66.2% compared with AFRM’s +28.3%. SEZL had the better risk-adjusted return, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.96 versus AFRM’s 0.65. AFRM was less volatile than SEZL, and AFRM had a smaller max drawdown than SEZL.

Total Return

SEZL +66.2%

AFRM +28.3%

Sharpe Ratio

SEZL 0.96

AFRM 0.65

Annualized Volatility

SEZL 97.3%

AFRM 64.3%

Max Drawdown

SEZL -72.0%

AFRM -53.9%

Metric winners: Total Return: SEZL; Sharpe Ratio: SEZL; Annualized Volatility: AFRM (less volatile); Max Drawdown: AFRM (smaller drawdown).

SEZL Total Return

↑ +66.2%

AFRM Total Return

↑ +28.3%

Relative Performance of SEZL vs AFRM (Normalized to 100)

SEZL AFRM

Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison

Trade SEZL or AFRM

Access these assets on trusted platforms.

Hyperliquid

Trade perpetual futures exposure where supportedSEZLAFRMTrade on Hyperliquid

Binance

Trade futures exposure on a global exchange where supportedSEZLAFRMTrade on Binance

Affiliate disclosure

Key Takeaways

Total Return: SEZL delivered a +66.2% total return, while AFRM returned +28.3% over the same period. SEZL outperformed on total returns.
Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): SEZL had a higher Sharpe (0.96 vs 0.65), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.
Volatility (Annualized): SEZL was more volatile, with 97.3% annualized volatility, versus 64.3% for AFRM.
Maximum Drawdown: AFRM's maximum drawdown was -53.9%, while SEZL experienced a deeper drawdown of -72.0%.
Tail Risk (VaR & Expected Shortfall): At the 5% level (daily log returns), SEZL's VaR was -8.11% and its Expected Shortfall (CVaR) was -13.15%; AFRM's were -6.84% and -9.01%. VaR is the cutoff; Expected Shortfall is the average move on the worst days.
Skew & Kurtosis: Skew: SEZL -0.22 vs AFRM -0.09. Excess kurtosis: SEZL 14.92 vs AFRM 1.49. Negative skew leans downside; higher excess kurtosis means fatter tails.
Tail Days & Extremes: 2σ tail days (down/up): SEZL 4/4, AFRM 9/6. Worst day: SEZL -34.32% (2025-08-08) vs AFRM -14.47% (2025-05-09). Best day: SEZL +42.14% (2025-05-08) vs AFRM +15.79% (2025-05-12).
Risk ratios: Sortino - SEZL: 1.55 vs. AFRM: 0.96 , Calmar - SEZL: 0.93 vs. AFRM: 0.53 , Sterling - SEZL: 0.87 vs. AFRM: 1.03 , Treynor - SEZL: 0.38 vs. AFRM: 0.15 , Ulcer Index - SEZL: 51.28% vs. AFRM: 25.20%

Investment Comparison

If you invested $10,000 in each asset on April 25, 2025:

SEZL $16,624.97 +66.2%

AFRM $12,829.5 +28.3%

Difference: $3,795.47 (SEZL ahead)

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings Performance Over Time

Metric	SEZL	AFRM
30 Days	6.9%	40.6%
90 Days	18%	-11.8%
180 Days	3.6%	-16.5%
1 Year	66.2%	28.3%

Shorter time frames can show different leaders as market conditions change. Consider your investment horizon when comparing performance.

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings Correlation

Average Correlation

moderately correlated

0.54

Current (30-day) 0.73

30-day rolling range -0.21 to +0.73

Sezzle and Affirm Holdings are moderately correlated over the past year. With a correlation of 0.54, these assets show moderate co-movement, offering some diversification when held together.

For portfolio construction, this moderate correlation offers some diversification benefit, though the assets still tend to move together during major market moves.

Metric	Value
Current (30-day)	0.73
Average (full period)	0.54
Minimum (30-day rolling)	-0.21
Maximum (30-day rolling)	0.73

Correlation measures how closely two assets move together. Values near +1 indicate strong co-movement, near 0 indicates independence, and negative values indicate inverse movement. Current, minimum, and maximum figures are 30-day rolling correlations on shared daily returns.

Drawdown

Maximum Drawdown

SEZL

-72.0%

AFRM

-53.9%

Sezzle experienced its maximum drawdown of -72% from 2025-07-03 to 2025-11-17. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Affirm Holdings experienced its maximum drawdown of -53.9% from 2025-09-19 to 2026-03-27. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Smaller drawdowns and faster recoveries indicate lower downside risk and greater resilience during market stress.

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings Volatility (SEZL vs AFRM)

SEZL Volatility

97.3%

±6.13% 1-day vol

AFRM Volatility

64.3%

±4.05% 1-day vol

1-day volatility (1σ)

SEZL

±6.13%

AFRM

±4.05%

Sezzle's 97.3% annualized volatility translates to about ±6.13% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Affirm Holdings's 64.3% annualized volatility translates to about ±4.05% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

SEZL had the wider volatility profile over this window. That means its day-to-day return distribution was broader; AFRM was calmer, but lower volatility does not by itself mean better returns.

Treat the ± daily figure as a one-standard-deviation estimate from historical returns, not a forecast or expected absolute daily move. For context, 15-18% annualized volatility is roughly ±1% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Sharpe Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Return per total volatility

Sharpe gives us excess return per unit of risk. Upside and downside volatility both count as risk.

Higher is better

excess return / total volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sharpe} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_R}

Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. SEZL had a higher Sharpe (0.96 vs 0.65), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.

A Sharpe above 1.0 is generally considered good, above 2.0 is excellent. Negative Sharpe means the asset underperformed the risk-free rate. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Sortino Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Sortino Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Return per downside volatility

Sortino keeps the return-over-risk idea, but only returns below the target rate count as volatility.

Higher is better

excess return / downside volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sortino} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_{\mathrm{down}}}

Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only counts downside deviation (returns below the target return). SEZL had better downside-adjusted returns.

A higher Sortino is better. It's useful when upside volatility is common (crypto is the obvious example). Downside deviation: SEZL 60.2% vs AFRM 43.6%. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices, using the daily risk-free rate as the target return, and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Calmar Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Calmar Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

CAGR per worst drawdown

Calmar compares CAGR against the single deepest peak-to-trough loss over the period.

Higher is better

CAGR / max drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Calmar} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR}}{|\mathrm{MaxDD}|}

Calmar ratio compares CAGR to maximum drawdown. Higher Calmar means more return per unit of worst drawdown. SEZL posted the higher Calmar ratio.

Calmar is computed on each asset's full 365-day lookback and uses the max drawdown over that same window.

Sterling Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Sterling Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Return per average drawdown

Sterling smooths the drawdown penalty by using average drawdown events instead of only the worst one.

Higher is better

excess annual return / average deep drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sterling} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR} - R_f}{\overline{D}_{>10\%}}

Sterling ratio measures excess return per unit of average drawdown (typically drawdowns worse than 10%). AFRM posted the higher Sterling ratio.

Sterling uses average drawdown events deeper than 10% and subtracts the risk-free rate to report excess return.

Treynor Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Treynor Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Excess return per market beta

Treynor divides excess annualized return by beta — the sensitivity of the asset to broad-market moves. The slope shown is each asset’s beta vs SPY.

Higher is better

excess return / market beta

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Treynor} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\beta}

Treynor ratio measures excess return per unit of market risk (beta) instead of total volatility. SEZL posted the higher Treynor ratio.

Treynor uses beta vs the S&P 500 (SPY) on shared dates and the average 3-month Treasury rate as the risk-free rate.

Ulcer Index of SEZL and AFRM

Ulcer Index: SEZL vs. AFRM

Drawdown pain

Ulcer Index is a risk index, not a return-over-risk ratio. Lower means smaller and shorter drawdowns.

Lower is better

root-mean-square drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{UI} = \sqrt{\mathbb{E}[D_t^2]}

Ulcer Index captures drawdown depth and duration. Lower Ulcer Index means less drawdown pain. AFRM had the lower Ulcer Index (less drawdown pain).

Ulcer Index is computed from each asset's drawdown series over the full lookback window.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Sezzle vs. Affirm Holdings

This section looks at the shape of daily returns, not just the average. Tail stats are computed per asset on its own daily series (crypto includes weekends). We use daily log returns $\ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)$ so multi-day moves add cleanly.

Definitions: Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall, skew, kurtosis, and fat tails.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: SEZL vs. AFRM (1-Year)

Actual daily return tails

The bars are real daily log-return observations from the article window. Darker bars are observations at or beyond each asset’s 5% VaR cutoff.

Observed returns

VaR marks the 5th percentile loss cutoff; Expected Shortfall averages the observations beyond that cutoff.

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}=Q_{0.05}(r_t),\quad \mathrm{ES}_{5\%}=\mathbb{E}[r_t\mid r_t\le \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}]

Metric (1-Year)	SEZL	AFRM
5% VaR (daily log return)	-8.11%	-6.84%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-13.15% (worst 13 days)	-9.01% (worst 13 days)
Skew	-0.22	-0.09
Excess kurtosis	14.92	1.49
2σ tail days (down / up)	4 / 4	9 / 6
Worst day	-34.32% (2025-08-08)	-14.47% (2025-05-09)
Best day	+42.14% (2025-05-08)	+15.79% (2025-05-12)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Computed on shared dates only (n=249). A “2σ downside move” means a shared-close log return more than 2 standard deviations below that asset’s own mean on this shared-date series. Dates below show simple returns (%) for readability.

Downside co-move map: SEZL vs. AFRM (2σ)

Shared-close daily returns

Dots mark actual downside days: asset-colored dots are one-sided downside moves, and red dots are joint downside days. Grey dots add sampled shared-return context when available. The shaded lower-left zone shows where both SEZL and AFRM crossed their own 2σ downside threshold.

2σ

Show downside tail dates

Dates below are shared-date observations. The “Date” is the period end (close). Tail thresholds are computed on log returns, but the table shows simple returns (%) for readability. Returns are computed from the previous shared close to this one (for example, Friday → Monday includes weekend moves).

Days when both SEZL and AFRM had a big down day (2σ)

Date (interval)	SEZL	AFRM
2025-08-08	-34.32%	-8.40%
2025-11-06	-12.47%	-7.77%

Days when SEZL had a big down day

Date (interval)	SEZL	AFRM
2025-08-08	-34.32%	-8.40%
2025-11-06	-12.47%	-7.77%
2026-02-27	-13.87%	-6.82%
2026-04-10	-13.62%	-0.98%

Days when AFRM had a big down day

Date (interval)	SEZL	AFRM
2025-05-09	+16.16%	-14.47%
2025-05-15	-1.00%	-8.49%
2025-08-08	-34.32%	-8.40%
2025-09-23	-6.58%	-8.20%
2025-10-10	-5.31%	-8.16%
2025-11-06	-12.47%	-7.77%
2026-02-12	-1.26%	-11.99%
2026-02-20 → 2026-02-23	-9.96%	-7.75%
2026-03-12	-5.72%	-8.68%

Read this as “how ugly the ugly days get”, not as a precise forecast. One-year samples are small, so tail estimates are inherently noisy.

Full Comparison of Sezzle vs. Affirm Holdings (1-Year)

Metric	SEZL	AFRM
Total Return	+66.2%	+28.3%
Annualized Volatility	97.3%	64.3%
Sharpe Ratio	0.96	0.65
Sortino Ratio	1.55	0.96
Calmar Ratio	0.93	0.53
Sterling Ratio	0.87	1.03
Treynor Ratio	0.38	0.15
Ulcer Index	51.28%	25.20%
Max Drawdown	-72.0%	-53.9%
Avg Correlation to S&P 500	0.34	0.49
5% VaR (daily log return)	-8.11%	-6.84%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-13.15%	-9.01%
Skew	-0.22	-0.09
Excess kurtosis	14.92	1.49
2σ tail days (down / up)	4 / 4	9 / 6

Audit this calculation

Formulas, inputs, and conventions used to compute the metrics on this page.

Inputs & conventions

Shared window for pair metrics: 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23 (last shared close).
Rolling correlation sample (shared closes): 220 rolling 30-day values (from 249 shared daily returns).
Annualization (days/year): SEZL: 252 days/year; AFRM: 252 days/year.
Risk-free rate: Uses the 3-month U.S. Treasury yield (FRED: DGS3MO), averaged over each asset’s window:

SEZL: 4.17% over 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23.

AFRM: 4.17% over 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23.
Volatility drag (rule of thumb): Estimated from annualized volatility (simple returns). For the log-return framing, see Log returns.

SEZL: ≈ -47.3%/yr

AFRM: ≈ -20.7%/yr
Data alignment: No forward fill. Correlation and tail co-moves are computed on shared closes only.
For cross-calendar pairs (e.g., crypto vs stocks), weekend/holiday moves roll into the next shared close.
Return conventions: Volatility/Sharpe/Sortino use simple daily returns. Tail-risk uses daily log returns for distribution stats (but tables show simple returns). Log returns.

Formulas

Daily simple return

r_t = \frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}} - 1

Volatility

\sigma_{ann} = \sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}

Volatility drag (approx.)

\text{drag} \approx \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_{ann}^2

Sharpe Ratio

S = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}}

Sortino Ratio

So = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\min(0,\,r_t - r_f/A)^2]}\,\sqrt{A}}

Maximum Drawdown

MDD = \min_t\left(\frac{P_t}{\max_{s \le t} P_s} - 1\right)

Average Correlation

\rho = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(r^A,\,r^B)}{\sigma_A\,\sigma_B}

Log returns

\ell_t = \ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)

Notation

$P_t$: Price on day t.
$r_t$: Simple daily return.
$\ell_t$: Log daily return.
$\bar{r}$: Average daily return.
$\sigma(r_t)$: Standard deviation of daily returns.
$A$: Annualization factor (days/year).
$r_f$: Annual risk-free rate.

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: SEZL or AFRM?

SEZL showed higher volatility at 97.3% annualized, compared to 64.3% for AFRM Over the past year. Higher volatility means larger price swings in both directions.

Does SEZL provide diversification when held with AFRM?

SEZL and AFRM are moderately correlated over the past year, with an average correlation of 0.54. This offers some diversification benefit, though they still tend to move together during major market moves.

How bad are the worst 5% days for SEZL vs AFRM?

Over the past year, SEZL's 5% VaR was -8.11% and its 5% Expected Shortfall was -13.15% (worst 13 days). AFRM's were -6.84% and -9.01% (worst 13 days).

Do SEZL and AFRM crash together on bad days?

On shared dates (n=249), when AFRM has a 2σ down day, SEZL also does 22.2% (2/9 days). In the other direction, when SEZL has one, AFRM also does 50.0% (2/4 days).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: SEZL or AFRM?

SEZL showed better risk-adjusted performance with a Sharpe ratio of 0.96 versus AFRM's 0.65 Over the past year.

Can SEZL and AFRM be combined in a portfolio?

Yes, though allocation sizing matters. Their moderate correlation offers some diversification benefits. SEZL's higher volatility (97.3%) means even small allocations can materially impact overall portfolio risk.

Explore our financial glossary

Which is a better investment: SEZL or AFRM?

Share This Comparison of SEZL vs AFRM

Relative Performance of SEZL vs AFRM (Normalized to 100)

Trade SEZL or AFRM

Key Takeaways

Investment Comparison

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings Performance Over Time

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings Correlation

Drawdown

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings Volatility (SEZL vs AFRM)

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Sharpe Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Sortino Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Sortino Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Calmar Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Calmar Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Sterling Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Sterling Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Treynor Ratio of SEZL and AFRM

Treynor Ratio: SEZL vs. AFRM

Ulcer Index of SEZL and AFRM

Ulcer Index: SEZL vs. AFRM

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Sezzle vs. Affirm Holdings

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: SEZL vs. AFRM (1-Year)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Downside co-move map: SEZL vs. AFRM (2σ)

Days when both SEZL and AFRM had a big down day (2σ)

Days when SEZL had a big down day

Days when AFRM had a big down day

Full Comparison of Sezzle vs. Affirm Holdings (1-Year)

Inputs & conventions

Formulas

Sezzle vs Affirm Holdings: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: SEZL or AFRM?

Does SEZL provide diversification when held with AFRM?

How bad are the worst 5% days for SEZL vs AFRM?

Do SEZL and AFRM crash together on bad days?

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: SEZL or AFRM?

Can SEZL and AFRM be combined in a portfolio?