GTLB vs HUBS Stock Comparison
HUBS currently leads GTLB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 56. The clearest difference is value, while GTLB has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between GTLB 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
GitLab Inc. vs HubSpot, Inc.
HUBS leads
HUBS leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support HUBS, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
GitLab Inc.
HubSpot, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBS over GTLB, 65 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. HUBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while GTLB holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HUBS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GitLab Inc. and HubSpot, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare GTLB 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 Resilience61 vs 46GTLB +15
- Momentum71 vs 78HUBS +7
- Quality60 vs 66HUBS +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBS. HUBS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; GTLB keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
HUBS's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GTLB 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.
GTLB (GitLab Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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 7 points.
Lower downside
GTLBGTLB on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 | GTLB | HUBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -22.3% | +9.5% | HUBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +104.7% | +74.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 23 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 56 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | HUBSon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs 3.5%; EPS growth -94.8% vs 38.7%; TTM ROE -5.5% vs 7.8%; gross margin 85.8% vs 83.2%; operating margin -8.5% vs 3.8% — HUBS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HUBS | Value 38 vs 64 |
| Technicals | GTLB | Price vs 50-day 9.1% vs 0%; vs 200-day 70.7% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GTLB | Risk Resilience 61 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | HUBS | Target upside -22.3% vs 9.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GTLB and HUBS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 29 – Oct 28HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HUBS +9
- 56 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- HUBS +14
- 56 vs 70
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- HUBS +6
- 58 vs 64
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when HUBS moved ahead of GTLB.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GTLB
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -4.52%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.96%, 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.
- 1GTLB closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge.
- 2GTLB's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3HUBS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
HUBS leads on balance| Metric | GTLB | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | 3.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -94.8% | 38.7% |
| Gross margin | 85.8% | 83.2% |
| Operating margin | -8.5% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -5.5% | 7.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.14 |
Performance
GTLB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GTLB | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.5% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 22.7% | 21.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 71.9% | 6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 164.6% | 9.6% |
| Year to date | 49.9% | -38% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | -47% |
Technicals
GTLB has the stronger structure| Metric | GTLB | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.6 | 58.6 |
| ADX (14) | 32.8 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.1% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 70.7% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.1% | 57% |
Risk
GTLB is the more resilient| Metric | GTLB | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | -0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | -0.74 |
| Max drawdown | -62% | -65.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -49.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.4% | 74.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.9% | -7.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GTLB or HUBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against GTLB's 56. The edge comes from value and momentum. GTLB 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 GTLB or HUBS the better buy right now?
HUBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HUBS over GTLB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HUBS leads Value by 26 points; GTLB leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; HUBS leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GTLB or HUBS?
Analyst price targets imply -22.3% upside for GTLB and +9.5% 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, GTLB 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, GTLB 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, GTLB or HUBS?
HUBS on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, GTLB or HUBS?
GTLB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GTLB on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 GTLB more profitable than HUBS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 85.8% vs 83.2%; operating margin -8.5% vs 3.8%; ttm roe -5.5% vs 7.8%. GTLB leads on one measure and HUBS on two measures, 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 GTLB getting stronger or weaker?
HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when HUBS moved ahead of GTLB.
What would change the GTLB vs HUBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GTLB closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge; GTLB's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; HUBS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 GTLB and HUBS?
GTLB: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HUBS: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on GTLB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HUBS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GTLB 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.