HUBS vs NET Stock Comparison
HUBS currently leads NET in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 25. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between HUBS and NET?
HUBS leads the current stock comparison as HubSpot, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
HubSpot, Inc. vs Cloudflare, Inc.
HUBS leads
HUBS leads by 43 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support HUBS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
HubSpot, Inc.
Cloudflare, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBS over NET, 68 versus 25 as of Oct 21, 2026. HUBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. HUBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 43 points over 30 sessions. HUBS leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare HubSpot, Inc. and Cloudflare, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare HUBS and NET 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.
- Momentum90 vs 15HUBS +75
- Value64 vs 24HUBS +40
- Quality66 vs 30HUBS +36
- Risk Resilience46 vs 32HUBS +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBS. HUBS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
HUBS's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HUBS and NET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HUBS (HubSpot, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
NET (Cloudflare, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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 40 points.
Momentum
HUBSHUBS on the Momentum factor, by 75 points.
Lower downside
HUBSHUBS on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 | NET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.9% | +0.1% | HUBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +74.7% | +95.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 21 | 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 | 68 vs 25 |
| Fundamentals | HUBSon balance | revenue growth 3.5% vs 8.8%; EPS growth 38.7% vs -6.4%; TTM ROE 7.8% vs -13.9%; gross margin 83.2% vs 72.6%; operating margin 3.8% vs -14.1% — HUBS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HUBS | Value 64 vs 24 |
| Technicals | NET | Price vs 50-day 8.4% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs 19.9% |
| Risk Resilience | HUBS | Risk Resilience 46 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | HUBS | Target upside 2.9% 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 NET and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 43 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 43 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HUBS +43
- 68 vs 25
- 7 sessions ago
- HUBS +41
- 66 vs 25
- 30 sessions ago
- HUBS +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- HUBS +17
- 58 vs 41
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HUBS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.61%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NET
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.36%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
HUBS 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 +5.32%, 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.
- 1NET closes the Momentum gap — currently 75 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge.
- 2NET's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3HUBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 | NET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 8.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 38.7% | -6.4% |
| Gross margin | 83.2% | 72.6% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | -14.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.8% | -13.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 2.18 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | HUBS | NET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 13.3% | -16.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 15.1% | -17.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22.4% | 8.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.8% | 40.5% |
| Year to date | -37.5% | 48% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -42.5% | 38% |
Technicals
NET has the stronger structure| Metric | HUBS | NET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.9 | 27.7 |
| ADX (14) | 11.4 | 23 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.4% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | 19.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57.5% | 45.7% |
Risk
HUBS is the more resilient| Metric | HUBS | NET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.52 | 1.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.59 | 1.08 |
| Max drawdown | -65.6% | -36.8% |
| Current drawdown | -49.3% | -19.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.3% | 65.3% |
| 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 NET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against NET's 25. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 NET the better buy right now?
HUBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HUBS over NET?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HUBS leads Momentum by 75 points; HUBS leads Value by 40 points; HUBS leads Quality by 36 points. HUBS leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by NET simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, HUBS or NET?
Analyst price targets imply +2.9% upside for HUBS and +0.1% for NET, 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 NET?
HUBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HUBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 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 NET?
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 NET?
HUBS on the Momentum factor, by 75 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 NET?
HUBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HUBS on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 NET?
HUBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 83.2% vs 72.6%; operating margin 3.8% vs -14.1%; ttm roe 7.8% vs -13.9%.
Is HUBS's lead over NET getting stronger or weaker?
HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 43 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the HUBS vs NET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NET closes the Momentum gap — currently 75 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge; NET's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; HUBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 NET?
HUBS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NET: 3 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 NET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HUBS and NET 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.