HUBB vs ITW Stock Comparison
Compare HUBB and ITW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HUBB and ITW?
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 Illinois Tool Works Inc.
HUBB leads
HUBB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from ITW.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support HUBB, and the lead recently changed hands.
Hubbell Incorporated
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBB over ITW, 47 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. HUBB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ITW holds the stronger quality profile. HUBB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 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 — ITW led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBB now leads by 1.
Compare Hubbell Incorporated and Illinois Tool Works 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 ITW 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 18HUBB +12
- Quality49 vs 60ITW +11
- Value51 vs 46HUBB +5
- Risk Resilience61 vs 63Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBB. HUBB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ITW keeps a meaningful quality 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 +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 ITW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HUBB (Hubbell Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ITW (Illinois Tool Works Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, 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
HUBBHUBB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HUBBHUBB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HUBBHUBB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
HUBBHUBB on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
ITWITW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
HUBBHUBB 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 | HUBB | ITW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.2% | +4.7% | HUBB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17.7% | +16.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | ITWon balance | revenue growth 12.9% vs 7.1%; EPS growth 32.2% vs 7.1%; TTM ROE 23.7% vs 101.7%; gross margin 35.2% vs 44.2%; operating margin 20.2% vs 26.5% — ITW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HUBB | Value 51 vs 46 |
| Technicals | ITW | Price vs 50-day -4.4% vs -4.3%; vs 200-day -6.9% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | HUBB | Target upside 19.2% vs 4.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HUBB and ITW 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 2 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)
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 — ITW led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HUBB now leads by 1.
- Today
- HUBB +1
- 47 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- ITW +4
- 43 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- ITW +8
- 46 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- ITW +15
- 44 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when ITW 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
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.79%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ITW 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 +1.12%, 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.
- 1ITW closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBB's edge.
- 2ITW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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
ITW leads on balance| Metric | HUBB | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.9% | 7.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 32.2% | 7.1% |
| Gross margin | 35.2% | 44.2% |
| Operating margin | 20.2% | 26.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.7% | 101.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 3.35 |
Performance
ITW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HUBB | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.8% | -9.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.2% | 6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | -2.3% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | 7.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.6% | -0.6% |
Technicals
ITW has the stronger structure| Metric | HUBB | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.8 | 25.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.4% | -4.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.9% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.7% | 14.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HUBB | ITW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 0.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | -0.04 |
| Max drawdown | -20.5% | -17.9% |
| Current drawdown | -18.9% | -11.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.9% | 21.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HUBB or ITW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against ITW's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. ITW is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 HUBB or ITW the better buy right now?
HUBB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 ITW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HUBB leads Momentum by 12 points; ITW leads Quality by 11 points; HUBB leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HUBB or ITW?
Analyst price targets imply +19.2% upside for HUBB and +4.7% for ITW, so the Street currently favors HUBB. 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, HUBB or ITW?
HUBB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HUBB 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, HUBB or ITW?
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, HUBB or ITW?
HUBB on the Momentum factor, by 12 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 ITW?
ITW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITW 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 ITW?
ITW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 35.2% vs 44.2%; operating margin 20.2% vs 26.5%; ttm roe 23.7% vs 101.7%.
Is HUBB's lead over ITW getting stronger or weaker?
HUBB lead: Reversed — ITW led by 8 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when ITW moved ahead of HUBB.
What would change the HUBB vs ITW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ITW closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBB's edge; ITW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 ITW?
HUBB: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. ITW: 2 bullish / 2 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 ITW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HUBB and ITW 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.