GTLB vs HUBS Stock Comparison
Compare GTLB and HUBS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GTLB and HUBS?
GTLB leads the current stock comparison as GitLab Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GitLab Inc. vs HubSpot, Inc.
GTLB leads
GTLB leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from HUBS. Wall Street currently favors HUBS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GTLB, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
GitLab Inc.
HubSpot, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GTLB over HUBS, 57 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. GTLB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while HUBS holds the stronger value profile. GTLB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HUBS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GTLB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. GTLB lead: Reversed — HUBS led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GTLB now leads by 5.
Compare GitLab Inc. and HubSpot, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
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.
- Momentum74 vs 24GTLB +50
- Value38 vs 64HUBS +26
- Risk Resilience58 vs 46GTLB +12
- Quality60 vs 66HUBS +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GTLB. GTLB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; HUBS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -19
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
The lead changed hands: GTLB moved ahead of HUBS in the latest snapshot.
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
GTLB (GitLab Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
HUBS (HubSpot, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 81.2% against 63.4%.
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
GTLBGTLB 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
GTLBGTLB on the Momentum factor, by 50 points.
Lower downside
GTLBGTLB on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
HUBSHUBS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GTLB, analyst targets favor HUBS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GTLB | HUBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -14.5% | +16.1% | HUBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +114.5% | +73.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 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 GTLB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GTLB | 57 vs 52 |
| 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 22.7% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day 49.5% vs -13.6% |
| Risk Resilience | GTLB | Risk Resilience 58 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | HUBS | Target upside -14.5% vs 16.1% |
✓ 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 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'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 GTLB.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GTLB lead: Reversed — HUBS led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GTLB now leads by 5.
- Today
- GTLB +5
- 57 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- HUBS +5
- 58 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- HUBS +2
- 59 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- HUBS +9
- 57 vs 66
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when GTLB 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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (21.09%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.13%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.36%)
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.66%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.8%, AIQ -5 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.
- 1HUBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to GTLB's edge.
- 2HUBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GTLB'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) | -4.6% | -8.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 15.9% | 6.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 65.9% | 16% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 99.8% | -13.7% |
| Year to date | 26% | -44.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.2% | -55.2% |
Technicals
GTLB has the stronger structure| Metric | GTLB | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.5 | 41.2 |
| ADX (14) | 42 | 13.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 22.7% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 49.5% | -13.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63.4% | 81.2% |
Risk
GTLB is the more resilient| Metric | GTLB | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.89 | 0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.2 | -0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.32 | -1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -62% | -67.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.3% | -57.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.9% | 72.7% |
| 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, GTLB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against HUBS's 52. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. HUBS is not without a case — it holds the better value 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?
GTLB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 GTLB over HUBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GTLB leads Momentum by 50 points; HUBS leads Value by 26 points; GTLB leads Risk Resilience by 12 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 -14.5% upside for GTLB and +16.1% for HUBS, so the Street currently favors HUBS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GTLB. 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, 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?
GTLB on the Momentum factor, by 50 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 12 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 GTLB's lead over HUBS getting stronger or weaker?
GTLB lead: Reversed — HUBS led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GTLB now leads by 5. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when GTLB moved ahead of HUBS.
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: HUBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to GTLB's edge; HUBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GTLB'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: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HUBS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on GTLB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HUBS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, 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.