CMPVF vs HUBS
To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is CMPVF is a Hold and HUBS is a Buy.
Long-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).
CMPVF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileHUBS’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CMPVF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- HUBS’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Short-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.
If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.
HUBS’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- HUBS’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CMPVF (@Packaged Software) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HUBS (@Packaged Software) price change was -11.06% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Packaged Software industry was -2.38%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -8.38%, and the average quarterly price growth was +1.36%.
Reported Earning Dates
HUBS is expected to report earnings on Apr 30, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Packaged Software (-2.38% weekly)Packaged software comprises multiple software programs bundled together and sold as a group. For example, Microsoft Office includes multiple applications such as Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. In some cases, buying a bundled product is cheaper than purchasing each item individually[s20] . Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corp. and Adobe are some major American packaged software makers.
| CMPVF | HUBS | CMPVF / HUBS | |
| Capitalization | 2.66B | 32.3B | 8% |
| EBITDA | 225M | -81.23M | -277% |
| Gain YTD | 32.229 | -24.252 | -133% |
| P/E Ratio | 22.83 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 1.17B | 2.17B | 54% |
| Total Cash | 69.1M | 1.39B | 5% |
| Total Debt | 707M | 788M | 90% |
CMPVF | HUBS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 44 | 5 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 4 Undervalued | 100 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 46 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 83 | 90 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 42 | 63 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 40 | 78 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | n/a |
Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.
CMPVF's Valuation (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for HUBS (100) in the Information Technology Services industry. This means that CMPVF’s stock grew significantly faster than HUBS’s over the last 12 months.
HUBS's Profit vs Risk Rating (46) in the Information Technology Services industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CMPVF (100) in the null industry. This means that HUBS’s stock grew somewhat faster than CMPVF’s over the last 12 months.
CMPVF's SMR Rating (83) in the null industry is in the same range as HUBS (90) in the Information Technology Services industry. This means that CMPVF’s stock grew similarly to HUBS’s over the last 12 months.
CMPVF's Price Growth Rating (42) in the null industry is in the same range as HUBS (63) in the Information Technology Services industry. This means that CMPVF’s stock grew similarly to HUBS’s over the last 12 months.
CMPVF's P/E Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HUBS (78) in the Information Technology Services industry. This means that CMPVF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HUBS’s over the last 12 months.
| HUBS | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 86% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 83% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 62% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 89% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 65% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 72% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 83% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 6 days ago 66% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 85% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 78% |
CMPVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CMPVF has been loosely correlated with CMPUY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 64% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CMPVF jumps, then CMPUY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CMPVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMPVF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CMPUY - CMPVF | 64% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| MGPPF - CMPVF | 40% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| ROIUF - CMPVF | 38% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| THNCF - CMPVF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HUBS - CMPVF | 32% Poorly correlated | -11.00% | ||
More | ||||
HUBS and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, HUBS has been loosely correlated with NOW. These tickers have moved in lockstep 57% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if HUBS jumps, then NOW could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HUBS | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HUBS | 100% | -11.00% | ||
| NOW - HUBS | 57% Loosely correlated | -6.06% | ||
| SHOP - HUBS | 50% Loosely correlated | -18.24% | ||
| FRSH - HUBS | 48% Loosely correlated | -10.21% | ||
| BRZE - HUBS | 48% Loosely correlated | -9.81% | ||
| NET - HUBS | 46% Loosely correlated | -10.17% | ||
More | ||||