Atlassian leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. HubSpot still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Valuation still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. The overall score gap is 20 points in favour of Atlassian Corporation.
Both operate in: Software - Application
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. HUBS and TEAM share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how HubSpot and Atlassian each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Atlassian Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 2.8 turns lower.
Profitability still favours HubSpot, with a 8.7-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The valuation lead is clear, but pricing and profitability still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the HUBS vs TEAM comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HUBS and TEAM each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.