Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HUBS scored 56.9, FICO scored 86.3 — FICO leads.
Compare another set
HUBS
HubSpot, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
56.9
$228.30 · $11.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.4
FICO leads
FICO
Fair Isaac Corporation
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
86.3
$667.58 · $14.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestFICO19.3x
Fastest growthHUBS+19.2%
Highest qualityFICO91 / 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
FICO
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
FICO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HUBS
FICO
$658mC+
FCF
$961mC+
+19.2%B+
Rev
+15.9%B+
0.14B+
D/E
Negative equity
81.5xC
P/E
19.3xB+
0.28A
PEG
0.67A-
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
FICO
9% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
1% below
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~10%/yr
-15%
1-yr DCF upside
-13%
+10%
5-yr DCF upside
+1%
+59%
10-yr DCF upside
+25%
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
FICO
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
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.
FICOFair Isaac Corporation
Software - Application · $667.58 · beta 1.34
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $14.4b. Down 64% from 52-week high of $1858.91 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.67 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,113 (implying +67% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 118% 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
Down 64% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
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 FICO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.4 points in favor of FICO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueHUBS 32.0 · FICO 81.3FICO +49.3
QualityHUBS 61.9 · FICO 91.1FICO +29.2
GrowthHUBS 92.9 · FICO 86.7HUBS +6.2
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 FICO or HUBS the better stock?
FICO scores higher: FICO 86.3, 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 FICO and HUBS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where FICO leads by 49 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are FICO 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.