The structural profiles are close, with HubSpot carrying a narrow edge on valuation. MongoDB still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, MongoDB carries the stronger setup — intact trend against HubSpot's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with HubSpot, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
On valuation, the clearer edge sits with MongoDB, Inc., while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity points to a meaningful structural match, though not a tight one.
Most of the shared profile comes through capital structure and revenue growth trajectory.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
HubSpot, Inc. still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for MongoDB, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
Where HUBS and MDB each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 33 turns lower.
On the market side, MongoDB carries the stronger trend while HubSpot's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the HUBS vs MDB comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HUBS and MDB 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.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
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.