AAPL vs HUBS Stock Comparison
HUBS currently leads AAPL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 63. The clearest difference is value, while AAPL has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and HUBS?
HUBS leads the current stock comparison as HubSpot, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs HubSpot, Inc.
HUBS leads
HUBS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from AAPL.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HUBS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
HubSpot, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBS over AAPL, 68 versus 63 as of Oct 21, 2026. HUBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while AAPL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HUBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. HUBS lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBS now leads by 5.
Compare Apple Inc. and HubSpot, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AAPL and HUBS against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value38 vs 64HUBS +26
- Risk Resilience68 vs 46AAPL +22
- Momentum70 vs 90HUBS +20
- Quality80 vs 66AAPL +14
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBS. HUBS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; AAPL keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
HUBS's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and HUBS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HUBS (HubSpot, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
HUBSHUBS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HUBSHUBS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HUBSHUBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
HUBSHUBS on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
HUBSHUBS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AAPL | HUBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.3% | +2.9% | HUBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.6% | +74.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 23 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HUBS | 63 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.6% vs 3.5%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 7.8%; gross margin 48.7% vs 83.2%; operating margin 33.2% vs 3.8% |
| Valuation | HUBS | Value 38 vs 64 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 8.4%; vs 200-day 15.8% vs -0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | HUBS | Target upside -3.3% vs 2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and HUBS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on HUBS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HUBS lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBS now leads by 5.
- Today
- HUBS +5
- 63 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- HUBS +5
- 61 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +13
- 63 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- HUBS +7
- 51 vs 58
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when HUBS moved ahead of AAPL.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.51%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HUBS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.61%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.17%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
HUBS leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.34%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AAPL closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge.
- 2AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3HUBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | AAPL | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 3.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 38.7% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 83.2% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 7.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.14 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AAPL | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 13.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | 15.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | 22.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.6% | 8.8% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | -37.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 37.2% | -42.5% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.5 | 73.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 11.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.8% | -0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 57.5% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.6 | -0.59 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -65.6% |
| Current drawdown | -1.1% | -49.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.4% | 74.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -7.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or HUBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against AAPL's 63. The edge comes from value and momentum. AAPL is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AAPL or HUBS the better buy right now?
HUBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HUBS over AAPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HUBS leads Value by 26 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; HUBS leads Momentum by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or HUBS?
Analyst price targets imply -3.3% upside for AAPL and +2.9% for HUBS, so the Street currently favors HUBS. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AAPL or HUBS?
HUBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HUBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AAPL or HUBS?
HUBS on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AAPL or HUBS?
HUBS on the Momentum factor, by 20 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AAPL or HUBS?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 22 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAPL more profitable than HUBS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 83.2%; operating margin 33.2% vs 3.8%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 7.8%. AAPL leads on two measures and HUBS on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is HUBS's lead over AAPL getting stronger or weaker?
HUBS lead: Reversed — AAPL led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBS now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when HUBS moved ahead of AAPL.
What would change the AAPL vs HUBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AAPL closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge; AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; HUBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and HUBS?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. HUBS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HUBS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and HUBS with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.