HLIO vs HUBB Stock Comparison
Compare HLIO and HUBB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HLIO and HUBB?
HLIO leads the current stock comparison as Helios Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Helios Technologies, Inc. vs Hubbell Incorporated
HLIO leads
HLIO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HLIO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Helios Technologies, Inc.
Hubbell Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLIO over HUBB, 49 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. HLIO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while HUBB holds the stronger momentum profile. HLIO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLIO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. HLIO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Helios Technologies, Inc. and Hubbell Incorporated 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 HLIO and HUBB 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.
- Risk Resilience69 vs 61HLIO +8
- Momentum24 vs 30HUBB +6
- Value56 vs 51HLIO +5
- Quality52 vs 49Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HLIO. HLIO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; HUBB keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +1
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.63%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
HLIO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HLIO and HUBB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLIO (Helios Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
HUBB (Hubbell Incorporated): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals.
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
HLIOHLIO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HUBBHUBB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HLIOHLIO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
HUBBHUBB on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
HLIOHLIO on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
HLIOHLIO 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 | HLIO | HUBB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.7% | +19.2% | HLIO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.8% | +17.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 5 | 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 HLIO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 49 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | HUBB | revenue growth 1.5% vs 12.9%; EPS growth 10% vs 32.2%; TTM ROE 7.6% vs 23.7%; gross margin 32.7% vs 35.2%; operating margin 10% vs 20.2% |
| Valuation | HLIO | Value 56 vs 51 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -4.4%; vs 200-day -0.4% vs -6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | HLIO | Risk Resilience 69 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | HLIO | Target upside 26.7% vs 19.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HLIO and HUBB 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 HLIO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10HLIO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HLIO +2
- 49 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- HLIO +7
- 50 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- HLIO +6
- 52 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- HLIO +8
- 52 vs 44
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when HUBB moved ahead of HLIO.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.83%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.99%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
HLIO 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.82%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.77%, 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.
- 1HUBB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLIO's edge.
- 2HUBB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HLIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate HLIO's advantage entirely.
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
HUBB leads on balance| Metric | HLIO | HUBB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.5% | 12.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10% | 32.2% |
| Gross margin | 32.7% | 35.2% |
| Operating margin | 10% | 20.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.6% | 23.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 1.37 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | HLIO | HUBB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.2% | -11.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.9% | -3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.6% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | 27.2% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.5% | 3.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | HLIO | HUBB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.4 | 38.8 |
| ADX (14) | 31.3 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.4% | -6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.1% | 24.7% |
Risk
HLIO is the more resilient| Metric | HLIO | HUBB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.52 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -26.7% | -20.5% |
| Current drawdown | -26.7% | -18.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.4% | 31.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HLIO or HUBB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLIO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against HUBB's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. HUBB is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 HLIO or HUBB the better buy right now?
HLIO 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLIO over HUBB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLIO leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; HUBB leads Momentum by 6 points; HLIO leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HLIO or HUBB?
Analyst price targets imply +26.7% upside for HLIO and +19.2% for HUBB, so the Street currently favors HLIO. 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, HLIO or HUBB?
HLIO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HLIO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, HLIO or HUBB?
HUBB 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, HLIO or HUBB?
HUBB on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, HLIO or HUBB?
HLIO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HLIO on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 HLIO more profitable than HUBB?
HUBB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 32.7% vs 35.2%; operating margin 10% vs 20.2%; ttm roe 7.6% vs 23.7%.
Is HLIO's lead over HUBB getting stronger or weaker?
HLIO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 11 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-10, when HUBB moved ahead of HLIO.
What would change the HLIO vs HUBB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HUBB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLIO's edge; HUBB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HLIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate HLIO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HLIO and HUBB?
HLIO: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HUBB: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 HLIO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HUBB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HLIO and HUBB 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.