Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$216.12
▼ $13.46 (-5.9%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:03 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$215.30 - $230.00
52-Week Range
$169.63 - $525.51
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$185.05
Resistance
$265.00
HUBS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-57.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/28 factors positiveRisk: High
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $318.68 vs. price $216.12 (+47.5%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 6.6% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
54
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $216.12
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 0 to 37 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
79
Quality
58
Value
57
Momentum
23
Risk
40
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
50
Institutional
29
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) has primarily focused on its strong stock performance, with shares rising **26% since its last earnings report**, driven by positive investor sentiment and broader software sector gains. Additionally, the company was highlighted alongside other tech firms like CrowdStrike and ServiceNow as part of a broader market rally following favorable financial results from peers like Snowflake. No company-specific operational or strategic updates were mentioned in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about HubSpot, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
34
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
37
Fundamentals
50
Technical
23
Valuation
57
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+23%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
HUBS exhibits **herding as the dominant psychological state**, with investors underweighting it relative to peers despite modest momentum and positive sentiment. The narrative gap is narrow (-2), suggesting no extreme disconnect between market perception and fundamentals. However, the stock’s valuation remains 22% below fair value, which may dampen speculative euphoria. The key question is whether underperformance will persist or if investors will rebalance into HUBS as peers stabilize. Low panic and overconfidence scores imply no extreme behavioral extremes are driving the trend.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 01:34 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""HubSpot (HUBS) reported earnings 30 days ago... up 26% since last earnings report""
""HubSpot CFO sells over 1,000 shares""
""AI PowerPoint Maker... reaches 12 million users in 2026""
""software equities broadly gained momentum... HubSpot shares soaring""
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 7D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Peter Lynch — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for HUBS reflects deep contrasts in how these methodologies prioritize stock selection. Peter Lynch’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on growth potential, where he sees the stock’s price lagging behind its earnings trajectory—a classic Lynch playbook. Meanwhile, the Graham-based approaches (both Defensive and Enterprising Investor) dismiss it outright, flagging it as statistically overvalued and lacking defensive traits, aligning with their margin-of-safety philosophy. The middle-ground thinkers like Fisher, Marks, and Smith acknowledge the company’s strengths but temper enthusiasm, either because it doesn’t meet their bar for exceptional quality or because they suspect market expectations are already baked in. Even the market-efficiency camp (Malkiel/Bogle) and cycle analysts (Nelson, Livermore) lean cautious, either because the stock’s edge over an index isn’t compelling or because its momentum appears stretched. Only a few—like Mackay and Veblen—offer lukewarm neutrality, with Mackay spotting no mania and Veblen questioning whether growth will translate to profits, while the lowest scorers (Loeb, Schwager) warn of outright risk or a lack of disciplined setup.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 92
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 80
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 65
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 63
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 62
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 54
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 51
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 33
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 30
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 27
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 15
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 bearish · 1 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
83.8%
Operating Margin
0.2%
Net Margin
1.5%
EBITDA Margin
4.6%
ROE
2.2%
ROA
1.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.88
Cash
$882.24M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.67
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$216.12
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$318.68
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+47.5%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
21.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.9% | $862.32M | $791.12M |
| 2 | 17.0% | $1.01B | $849.40M |
| 3 | 12.2% | $1.13B | $874.23M |
| 4 | 7.3% | $1.22B | $860.94M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.25B | $809.60M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$707.55M
Terminal Value
$19.64B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$12.77B
Enterprise Value
$16.95B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$16.95B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$38.84
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$32.70
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
HUBS currently scores 54/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, HUBS's estimated fair value is $318.68, which is 47.5% above the current price of $216.12. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HUBS's technical score is 23/100, which currently reads as bearish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $318.68 vs. price $216.12 (+47.5%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 855.6%; Free cash flow growth: 26.2%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 6.6% of price; Calmar: -0.32 (3y annualized return -25.0% / max drawdown 79.2%); Price is below the 50-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for HUBS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FISHER ERIKA ASHLEY | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 322 | -322 | $251.11 |
| Bueker Kathryn | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 1,077 | -1,077 | $251.11 |
| Shah Dharmesh | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 578 | -578 | $251.11 |
| Halligan Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 158 | -158 | $251.11 |
| Rangan Yamini | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 2,622 | -2,622 | $251.11 |
| Halligan Brian | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 8,500 | -8,500 | $219.50 |
| Dischler Gerald | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 925 | +925 | $215.93 |
| Dischler Gerald | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 1,940 | +925 | $215.93 |
| Dischler Gerald | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 1,015 | +1,015 | — |
| Dischler Gerald | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 1,015 | +1,015 | — |
| FISHER ERIKA ASHLEY | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 702 | -702 | $235.22 |
| FISHER ERIKA ASHLEY | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 14,581 | -702 | $235.22 |
| FISHER ERIKA ASHLEY | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 728 | -728 | $239.92 |
| FISHER ERIKA ASHLEY | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 15,283 | -728 | $239.92 |
| Halligan Brian | Open Market Sale | 21.7.2026 | 8,500 | -8,500 | $221.09 |
| Halligan Brian | Open Market Sale | 21.7.2026 | 85,000 | -8,500 | $221.09 |
| Bueker Kathryn | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 781 | -781 | $187.72 |
| Shah Dharmesh | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 436 | -436 | $187.72 |
| Halligan Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 371 | -371 | $187.72 |
| Rangan Yamini | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 2,139 | -2,139 | $187.72 |
| Bueker Kathryn | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 56,349 | -781 | $187.72 |
| Shah Dharmesh | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 1,294,387 | -436 | $187.72 |
| Halligan Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 354,183 | -371 | $187.72 |
| Rangan Yamini | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 103,796 | -2,139 | $187.72 |
| Halligan Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 1,211 | +1,211 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,714,690 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,502,388 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.7% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology