FROG vs HUBS Stock Comparison
JFrog Ltd. vs HubSpot, Inc.
HUBS leads
HUBS leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FROG on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HUBS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JFrog Ltd.
HubSpot, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBS over FROG, 63 versus 43 as of Sep 5, 2026. HUBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while FROG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HUBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FROG. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JFrog Ltd. and HubSpot, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FROG 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.
- Value30%24 vs 64HUBS +40
- Momentum25%39 vs 70HUBS +31
- Quality30%60 vs 66HUBS +6
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 46FROG +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBS. HUBS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; FROG keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -16
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
HUBS's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FROG 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.
FROG (JFrog Ltd.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
FROGFROG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HUBSHUBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points.
Momentum
HUBSHUBS on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
FROGFROG on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
FROGFROG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HUBS, analyst targets favor FROG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FROG | HUBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11% | +5.7% | FROG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.7% | +73.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 22 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
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 | 43 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | HUBSon balance | revenue growth 6.4% vs 3.5%; EPS growth 56.4% vs 38.7%; TTM ROE -4.9% vs 7.8%; gross margin 77.9% vs 83.2%; operating margin -11.2% vs 3.8% — HUBS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HUBS | Value 24 vs 64 |
| Technicals | FROG | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs 10.7%; vs 200-day 33.4% vs -5% |
| Risk Resilience | FROG | Risk Resilience 52 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | FROG | Target upside 11% vs 5.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FROG 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 wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HUBS +20
- 43 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- HUBS +14
- 52 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- HUBS +8
- 53 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- HUBS +5
- 52 vs 57
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 11 when FROG moved ahead of HUBS.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.72%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.68%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.46%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.95%)
- 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.32%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.95%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1FROG closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge.
- 2FROG's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3HUBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
HUBS leads on balance| Metric | FROG | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.4% | 3.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 56.4% | 38.7% |
| Gross margin | 77.9% | 83.2% |
| Operating margin | -11.2% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.9% | 7.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0.14 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FROG | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.3% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | 17.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.3% | 16.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 115.8% | -16.5% |
| Year to date | 40.2% | -38.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 83.4% | -47.6% |
Technicals
FROG has the stronger structure| Metric | FROG | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 66.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.8 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | 10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.4% | -5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74.5% | 79.9% |
Risk
FROG is the more resilient| Metric | FROG | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 0.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.12 | -0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.79 | -0.72 |
| Max drawdown | -49.6% | -67.4% |
| Current drawdown | -15.8% | -52.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 72.8% | 72.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -7.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FROG or HUBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 63 against FROG's 43. The edge comes from value and momentum. FROG 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 FROG or HUBS the better buy right now?
HUBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HUBS over FROG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HUBS leads Value by 40 points; HUBS leads Momentum by 31 points; HUBS leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FROG or HUBS?
Analyst price targets imply +11% upside for FROG and +5.7% for HUBS, so the Street currently favors FROG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HUBS. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FROG or HUBS?
HUBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HUBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 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, FROG or HUBS?
FROG 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, FROG or HUBS?
HUBS on the Momentum factor, by 31 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, FROG or HUBS?
FROG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FROG on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FROG more profitable than HUBS?
HUBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 77.9% vs 83.2%; operating margin -11.2% vs 3.8%; ttm roe -4.9% vs 7.8%.
Is HUBS's lead over FROG getting stronger or weaker?
HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 20 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-11, when FROG moved ahead of HUBS.
What would change the FROG vs HUBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FROG closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge; FROG's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; HUBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FROG and HUBS?
FROG: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HUBS: 1 bullish / 1 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 FROG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HUBS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FROG and HUBS with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.