HubSpot vs PTC
HUBS and PTC 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 HUBS and PTC compare
PTC is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as HubSpot ($21.2B against $11.7B).
On earnings, PTC is cheaper: it trades at 19.0× trailing earnings, against 84.8× for HubSpot.
HubSpot grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.1% versus 19.5% for PTC).
PTC keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 41.4% compared with 4.3% at HubSpot.
PTC scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 12 for HubSpot), 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 | HUBS | PTC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.7B | $21.2B |
| Share price | $234.87 | $195.54 |
| Change, 1 year | −49.6% | −1.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −70.7% | 55.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.53 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 8,882 | 7,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 84.8× | 19.0× (better) |
| P/S | 3.4× (better) | 7.2× |
| P/B | 7.1× | 6.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 45.5× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.7× (better) | 22.7× |
| PEG | – | 0.60 |
| FCF yield | 6.8% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $88.68 | $321.76 |
| Margin of safety | −165% | 39.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.1% (better) | 19.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.8% (better) | 13.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 139% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 142% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 40.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 83.2% | 84.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 37.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.3% | 41.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 23.1% | 31.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.9% | 35.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 31.0% (better) | 27.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.27 |
| Interest coverage | 203× (better) | 17.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.38 (better) | 1.03 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.84 | 5.84 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 9.5% (better) | 6.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 9.5% (better) | 6.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.3% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 3.9% | 0.35% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$22.4M | −$11.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.6% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- HUBS stock overview
- HUBS income statement
- HUBS valuation and score
- PTC stock overview
- PTC income statement
- PTC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.