HUBS vs INTC Stock Comparison
Compare HUBS and INTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HUBS and INTC?
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
HubSpot, Inc. vs Intel Corp.
HUBS leads
HUBS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support HUBS, and its lead is narrowing.
HubSpot, Inc.
Intel Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBS over INTC, 52 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. HUBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while INTC holds the stronger momentum profile. HUBS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. HUBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare HubSpot, Inc. and Intel Corp. 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 HUBS and INTC 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.
- Momentum24 vs 77INTC +53
- Value64 vs 30HUBS +34
- Quality66 vs 39HUBS +27
- Risk Resilience46 vs 28HUBS +18
5 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBS. HUBS’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; INTC 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 -19
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
HUBS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HUBS and INTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HUBS (HubSpot, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
INTC (Intel Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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 34 points.
Momentum
INTCINTC on the Momentum factor, by 53 points.
Lower downside
HUBSHUBS on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 | HUBS | INTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.1% | -0.1% | HUBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73.4% | +136.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 22 | 27 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 | 52 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | HUBSon balance | revenue growth 3.5% vs 18.8%; EPS growth 38.7% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 7.8% vs -10.8%; gross margin 83.2% vs 38.9% — HUBS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HUBS | Value 64 vs 30 |
| Technicals | INTC | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day -13.6% vs 33.4% |
| Risk Resilience | HUBS | Risk Resilience 46 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | HUBS | Target upside 16.1% vs -0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HUBS and INTC 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10HUBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HUBS +8
- 52 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- HUBS +28
- 63 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- HUBS +23
- 61 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- HUBS +33
- 66 vs 33
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 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%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.8%, AIQ -5 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.61%, 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.
- 1INTC closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge.
- 2INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3HUBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HUBS'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
HUBS leads on balance| Metric | HUBS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 18.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 38.7% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 83.2% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.8% | -10.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.58 |
Performance
INTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HUBS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.9% | 11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.4% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.7% | 109.1% |
| Year to date | -44.3% | 171.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -55.2% | 309.8% |
Technicals
INTC has the stronger structure| Metric | HUBS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.2 | 61.3 |
| ADX (14) | 13.1 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -13.6% | 33.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 81.2% | 58.9% |
Risk
HUBS is the more resilient| Metric | HUBS | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.64 | 2.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.8 | 2.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.06 | 3.98 |
| Max drawdown | -67.4% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -57.3% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 72.7% | 79.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.2% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HUBS or INTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against INTC's 44. The edge comes from value and quality. INTC 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 HUBS or INTC the better buy right now?
HUBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HUBS over INTC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTC leads Momentum by 53 points; HUBS leads Value by 34 points; HUBS leads Quality by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HUBS or INTC?
Analyst price targets imply +16.1% upside for HUBS and -0.1% for INTC, 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, HUBS or INTC?
HUBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HUBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, HUBS or INTC?
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, HUBS or INTC?
INTC on the Momentum factor, by 53 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, HUBS or INTC?
HUBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HUBS on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 HUBS more profitable than INTC?
HUBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 83.2% vs 38.9%; operating margin 3.8% vs 0.1%; ttm roe 7.8% vs -10.8%.
Is HUBS's lead over INTC getting stronger or weaker?
HUBS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the HUBS vs INTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INTC closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge; INTC's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; HUBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate HUBS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HUBS and INTC?
HUBS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. INTC: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on HUBS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HUBS and INTC 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.