HUBB vs IR Stock Comparison
Compare HUBB and IR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HUBB and IR?
HUBB leads the current stock comparison as Hubbell Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hubbell Incorporated vs Ingersoll Rand Inc.
HUBB leads
HUBB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from IR. Wall Street currently favors IR on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support HUBB, and the lead recently changed hands.
Hubbell Incorporated
Ingersoll Rand Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBB over IR, 47 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. HUBB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum. HUBB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IR. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. HUBB lead: Reversed — IR led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBB now leads by 1.
Compare Hubbell Incorporated and Ingersoll Rand 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 HUBB and IR 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.
- Momentum30 vs 23HUBB +7
- Risk Resilience61 vs 64Even
- Value51 vs 53Even
- Quality49 vs 49Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBB. HUBB’s edge is concentrated in momentum.
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 +2
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
HUBB's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HUBB and IR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HUBB (Hubbell Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
IR (Ingersoll Rand Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
HUBBHUBB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
HUBBHUBB on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
IRIR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
IRIR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HUBB, analyst targets favor IR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HUBB | IR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.2% | +22% | IR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17.7% | +25.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 5 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBB. 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 | 47 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | IRon balance | revenue growth 12.9% vs 10.9%; EPS growth 32.2% vs 34.7%; TTM ROE 23.7% vs 9.5%; gross margin 35.2% vs 37.9%; operating margin 20.2% vs 21.5% — IR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 51 vs 53 |
| Technicals | HUBB | Price vs 50-day -4.4% vs -10.2%; vs 200-day -6.9% vs -10.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | IR | Target upside 19.2% vs 22% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HUBB and IR 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 HUBB.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10HUBB lead: Reversed — IR led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBB now leads by 1.
- Today
- HUBB +1
- 47 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- IR +3
- 43 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- IR +1
- 46 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- IR +10
- 44 vs 54
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when IR moved ahead of HUBB.
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.
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
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.01%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IR is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 up over the latest session (price +1.77%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.22%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1IR closes the Momentum gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBB's edge.
- 2IR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HUBB starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
IR leads on balance| Metric | HUBB | IR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.9% | 10.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 32.2% | 34.7% |
| Gross margin | 35.2% | 37.9% |
| Operating margin | 20.2% | 21.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.7% | 9.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.47 |
Performance
HUBB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | HUBB | IR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.8% | -13.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.2% | 3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | -14.2% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | -7.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.6% | -9.1% |
Technicals
HUBB has the stronger structure| Metric | HUBB | IR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.8 | 29 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 27.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.4% | -10.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.9% | -10.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.7% | 21.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HUBB | IR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -0.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | -0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -20.5% | -30.6% |
| Current drawdown | -18.9% | -26% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.9% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HUBB or IR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against IR's 46. The edge comes from momentum. 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 HUBB or IR the better buy right now?
HUBB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HUBB over IR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HUBB leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HUBB or IR?
Analyst price targets imply +19.2% upside for HUBB and +22% for IR, so the Street currently favors IR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HUBB. 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, HUBB or IR?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, HUBB or IR?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, HUBB or IR?
HUBB 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, HUBB or IR?
IR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HUBB more profitable than IR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.2% vs 37.9%; operating margin 20.2% vs 21.5%; ttm roe 23.7% vs 9.5%. HUBB leads on one measure and IR 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 HUBB's lead over IR getting stronger or weaker?
HUBB lead: Reversed — IR led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBB now leads by 1. 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 2026-08-19, when IR moved ahead of HUBB.
What would change the HUBB vs IR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IR closes the Momentum gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBB's edge; IR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HUBB starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 HUBB and IR?
HUBB: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. IR: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 HUBB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On IR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HUBB and IR 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.