HUBS vs INTU Stock Comparison
INTU currently leads HUBS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 74 vs 68. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between HUBS and INTU?
INTU leads the current stock comparison as Intuit Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
HubSpot, Inc. vs Intuit Inc.
INTU leads
INTU leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support INTU, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
HubSpot, Inc.
Intuit Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INTU over HUBS, 74 versus 68 as of Oct 21, 2026. INTU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. INTU also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INTU today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. INTU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare HubSpot, Inc. and Intuit Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare HUBS and INTU 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.
- Quality66 vs 77INTU +11
- Risk Resilience46 vs 57INTU +11
- Value64 vs 67Even
- Momentum90 vs 88Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor INTU. INTU’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
INTU's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HUBS and INTU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INTU (Intuit Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
HUBS (HubSpot, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 57.5% against 37.5%.
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
INTUINTU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HUBSHUBS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
INTUINTU on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
INTUINTU 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 | INTU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.9% | +14.2% | INTU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +74.7% | +78.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 19 | 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 INTU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INTU | 68 vs 74 |
| Fundamentals | HUBSon balance | revenue growth 3.5% vs -49.1%; EPS growth 38.7% vs -87.9%; TTM ROE 7.8% vs 23.4%; gross margin 83.2% vs 81.3%; operating margin 3.8% vs 27.4% — HUBS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 64 vs 67 |
| Technicals | HUBS | Price vs 50-day 8.4% vs 4.5%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs -12.5% |
| Risk Resilience | INTU | Risk Resilience 46 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | INTU | Target upside 2.9% vs 14.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HUBS and INTU 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 INTU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20INTU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INTU +6
- 68 vs 74
- 7 sessions ago
- INTU +7
- 66 vs 73
- 30 sessions ago
- INTU +3
- 50 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- INTU +11
- 58 vs 69
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when INTU 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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HUBS
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
INTU 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.34%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.1%, 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.
- 1HUBS closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTU's edge.
- 2HUBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3INTU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | HUBS | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.5% | -49.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 38.7% | -87.9% |
| Gross margin | 83.2% | 81.3% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 27.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.8% | 23.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.44 |
Performance
HUBS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | HUBS | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 13.3% | 11.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 15.1% | 14.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22.4% | 17.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.8% | -17.2% |
| Year to date | -37.5% | -49.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -42.5% | -48.2% |
Technicals
HUBS has the stronger structure| Metric | HUBS | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.9 | 81.7 |
| ADX (14) | 11.4 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.4% | 4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | -12.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57.5% | 37.5% |
Risk
INTU is the more resilient| Metric | HUBS | INTU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.52 | 0.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | -1.17 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.59 | -1.54 |
| Max drawdown | -65.6% | -62.7% |
| Current drawdown | -49.3% | -50.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.3% | 50.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.2% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HUBS or INTU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INTU is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 74 against HUBS's 68. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 INTU the better buy right now?
INTU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor INTU over HUBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INTU leads Quality by 11 points; INTU leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HUBS or INTU?
Analyst price targets imply +2.9% upside for HUBS and +14.2% for INTU, so the Street currently favors INTU. 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 INTU?
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, HUBS or INTU?
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 INTU?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 INTU?
INTU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. INTU on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 INTU?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 83.2% vs 81.3%; operating margin 3.8% vs 27.4%; ttm roe 7.8% vs 23.4%. HUBS leads on one measure and INTU 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 INTU's lead over HUBS getting stronger or weaker?
INTU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-17, when INTU moved ahead of HUBS.
What would change the HUBS vs INTU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HUBS closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to INTU's edge; HUBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; INTU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 HUBS and INTU?
HUBS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. INTU: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 HUBS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On INTU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HUBS and INTU 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.