ZoomInfo Technologies vs HubSpot
GTM and HUBS side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GTM and HUBS compare
HubSpot is the larger company, worth 9.2 times as much as ZoomInfo Technologies ($11.7B against $1.3B).
HubSpot grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.1% versus 2.7% for ZoomInfo Technologies).
HubSpot keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.3% compared with −43.0% at ZoomInfo Technologies.
HubSpot scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 5 for ZoomInfo Technologies), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | GTM | HUBS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | $11.7B |
| Share price | $4.36 | $234.87 |
| Change, 1 year | −60.1% | −49.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −94.1% | −70.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.87 | 1.53 |
| Employees | 3,180 | 8,882 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 84.8× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 3.4× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 7.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 45.5× |
| P/FCF | 3.5× (better) | 14.7× |
| FCF yield | 28.2% (better) | 6.8% |
| Fair value | $9.78 | $88.68 |
| Margin of safety | 55.4% (better) | −165% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.7% | 21.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.3% | 28.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −707% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −815% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 83.5% (better) | 83.2% |
| Operating margin | −35.2% | 3.8% (better) |
| Net margin | −43.0% | 4.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 28.5% (better) | 23.1% |
| Return on equity | −45.4% | 7.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −15.1% | 31.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.53 (better) | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | −8.8× | 203× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.65 | 1.38 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.03 | 4.84 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 22.8% (better) | 9.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 22.8% (better) | 9.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 90.8% | 98.3% |
| Held by insiders | 23.6% | 3.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$726K (better) | −$22.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.3% | 9.6% |
Go deeper
- GTM stock overview
- GTM income statement
- GTM valuation and score
- HUBS stock overview
- HUBS income statement
- HUBS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.