Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HUBS scored 56.9, DAVE scored 84.2 — DAVE leads.
Compare another set
HUBS
HubSpot, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
56.9
$228.30 · $11.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
27.3
DAVE leads
DAVE
Dave Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
84.2
$368.42 · $4.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestDAVE23.8x
Fastest growthDAVE+59.7%
Strongest balance sheetHUBS0.14
Highest qualityDAVE76 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueHUBS-9%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
HUBS
stronger →← stronger
DAVE
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
76
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
99
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
80
DAVE is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HUBS
DAVE
$658mC+
FCF
$319mC
+19.2%B+
Rev
+59.7%A
0.14B+
D/E
1.29C
81.5xC
P/E
23.8xB+
0.28A
PEG
0.85B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
HUBS
DAVE
9% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~16%/yr
-15%
1-yr DCF upside
-25%
+10%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
+59%
10-yr DCF upside
+36%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
HUBS
Why this score
Buying back stock
DAVE
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
The companies
HUBSHubSpot, Inc.
Software - Application · $228.30 · beta 1.24
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $11.7b. Down 54% from 52-week high of $497.96 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +19%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.28 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $248.77 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($515m) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
Trailing P/E 81.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 54% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 4.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
DAVEDave Inc.
Software - Application · $368.42 · beta 3.93
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $4.7b. 20% off the 52-week high of $458.25. Revenue growing +60% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.85 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $444.21 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 35% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 143% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
Beta 3.93 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. SaaS displacement — recurring revenue is sticky in good times but accelerates in churn during a downturn as customers consolidate vendors and renegotiate seat counts.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where HUBS and DAVE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 27.3 points in favor of DAVE. The widest single difference is Value, where DAVE leads by 48.2 points.
ValueHUBS 32.0 · DAVE 80.2DAVE +48.2
QualityHUBS 61.9 · DAVE 75.5DAVE +13.6
GrowthHUBS 92.9 · DAVE 98.6DAVE +5.7
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is DAVE or HUBS the better stock?
DAVE scores higher: DAVE 84.2, HUBS 56.9 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do DAVE and HUBS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where DAVE leads by 48 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. DAVE leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are DAVE and HUBS scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.