HUBS vs NOW Stock Comparison
HUBS currently leads NOW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 57. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between HUBS and NOW?
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 ServiceNow, Inc.
HUBS leads
HUBS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NOW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support HUBS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
HubSpot, Inc.
ServiceNow, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HUBS over NOW, 68 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. HUBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. HUBS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NOW. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HUBS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare HubSpot, Inc. and ServiceNow, 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 NOW 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.
- Value64 vs 37HUBS +27
- Momentum90 vs 81HUBS +9
- Quality66 vs 64Even
- Risk Resilience46 vs 46Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor HUBS. HUBS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
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: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 NOW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HUBS (HubSpot, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
NOW (ServiceNow, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals, 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
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 27 points.
Momentum
HUBSHUBS on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
NOWNOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NOWNOW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HUBS, analyst targets favor NOW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HUBS | NOW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.9% | +4.3% | NOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +74.7% | +86.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 20 | 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
2 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 57 |
| Fundamentals | NOWon balance | revenue growth 3.5% vs 5.8%; EPS growth 38.7% vs -35.6%; TTM ROE 7.8% vs 13.8%; gross margin 83.2% vs 74.8%; operating margin 3.8% vs 11.4% — NOW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HUBS | Value 64 vs 37 |
| Technicals | NOW | Price vs 50-day 8.4% vs 12.8%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs 28.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | NOW | Target upside 2.9% vs 4.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HUBS and NOW 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 11 points.
- Only 2 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)
- 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 0 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HUBS +11
- 68 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- HUBS +9
- 66 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- HUBS +5
- 58 vs 53
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%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NOW
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.00%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, BB Upper Band Breach, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +2.39%, 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.
- 1NOW closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge.
- 2NOW's BB Upper Band Breach 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
NOW leads on balance| Metric | HUBS | NOW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 5.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 38.7% | -35.6% |
| Gross margin | 83.2% | 74.8% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 11.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.8% | 13.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.68 |
Performance
NOW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HUBS | NOW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 13.3% | 7.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 15.1% | 9.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22.4% | 49.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.8% | 49.3% |
| Year to date | -37.5% | -2.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -42.5% | -16.4% |
Technicals
NOW has the stronger structure| Metric | HUBS | NOW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.9 | 69.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.4 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.4% | 12.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | 28.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57.5% | 40.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HUBS | NOW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.52 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.59 | -0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -65.6% | -55.9% |
| Current drawdown | -49.3% | -20.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.3% | 58% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.2% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HUBS or NOW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HUBS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against NOW's 57. The edge comes from value and 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 HUBS or NOW the better buy right now?
HUBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HUBS over NOW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HUBS leads Value by 27 points; HUBS leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HUBS or NOW?
Analyst price targets imply +2.9% upside for HUBS and +4.3% for NOW, so the Street currently favors NOW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HUBS. 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, HUBS or NOW?
HUBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HUBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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 NOW?
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 NOW?
HUBS on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 NOW?
NOW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NOW 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 HUBS more profitable than NOW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 83.2% vs 74.8%; operating margin 3.8% vs 11.4%; ttm roe 7.8% vs 13.8%. HUBS leads on one measure and NOW 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 HUBS's lead over NOW getting stronger or weaker?
HUBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 11 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 NOW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NOW closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to HUBS's edge; NOW's BB Upper Band Breach 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 NOW?
HUBS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NOW: 4 bullish / 1 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 NOW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HUBS and NOW 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.