Seek Returns logo

FTV vs. HUBS: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at FTV and HUBS, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolFTVHUBS
Company NameFortive CorporationHubSpot, Inc.
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorIndustrialsInformation Technology
GICS IndustryMachinerySoftware
Market Capitalization16.25 billion USD23.91 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateJuly 5, 2016October 9, 2014
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of FTV and HUBS by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

FTV vs. HUBS: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolFTVHUBS
5-Day Price Return0.50%5.53%
13-Week Price Return-33.85%-29.99%
26-Week Price Return-41.18%-44.65%
52-Week Price Return-31.92%-8.76%
Month-to-Date Return0.23%-12.69%
Year-to-Date Return-35.95%-34.89%
10-Day Avg. Volume4.68M1.31M
3-Month Avg. Volume3.81M0.83M
3-Month Volatility54.38%36.84%
Beta1.091.64

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

FTV

7.44%

Machinery Industry

Max
34.68%
Q3
19.06%
Median
13.13%
Q1
8.53%
Min
-4.87%

FTV’s Return on Equity of 7.44% is in the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This indicates a less efficient generation of profit from its equity base when compared to its competitors.

HUBS

-0.62%

Software Industry

Max
59.01%
Q3
21.98%
Median
7.15%
Q1
-11.12%
Min
-51.24%

HUBS has a negative Return on Equity of -0.62%. This indicates the company is generating a loss for its shareholders, which can be a result of unprofitability or negative shareholder equity and is often a sign of financial distress.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

FTV

12.51%

Machinery Industry

Max
19.74%
Q3
11.24%
Median
8.13%
Q1
5.38%
Min
-1.11%

A Net Profit Margin of 12.51% places FTV in the upper quartile for the Machinery industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

HUBS

-0.42%

Software Industry

Max
48.14%
Q3
18.23%
Median
5.60%
Q1
-9.22%
Min
-49.36%

HUBS has a negative Net Profit Margin of -0.42%, indicating the company is operating at a net loss as its expenses exceeded its revenues.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

FTV

17.22%

Machinery Industry

Max
26.63%
Q3
16.15%
Median
11.27%
Q1
7.72%
Min
-4.91%

An Operating Profit Margin of 17.22% places FTV in the upper quartile for the Machinery industry. This signals a strong ability to translate revenue into operating profit, outperforming most of its competitors in core business efficiency.

HUBS

-2.59%

Software Industry

Max
57.34%
Q3
20.60%
Median
7.84%
Q1
-8.72%
Min
-51.37%

HUBS has a negative Operating Profit Margin of -2.59%. This signifies the company is unprofitable at the operational level, as its core business expenses exceed its revenue.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolFTVHUBS
Return on Equity (TTM)7.44%-0.62%
Return on Assets (TTM)4.40%-0.32%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)12.51%-0.42%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)17.22%-2.59%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)59.78%84.55%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

FTV

0.98

Machinery Industry

Max
3.83
Q3
2.32
Median
1.72
Q1
1.28
Min
0.78

FTV’s Current Ratio of 0.98 falls into the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This indicates a tighter liquidity situation and a more constrained capacity to handle short-term debt than many of its competitors.

HUBS

1.79

Software Industry

Max
3.83
Q3
2.31
Median
1.45
Q1
1.03
Min
0.24

HUBS’s Current Ratio of 1.79 aligns with the median group of the Software industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

FTV

0.46

Machinery Industry

Max
1.49
Q3
0.75
Median
0.44
Q1
0.26
Min
0.00

FTV’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.46 is typical for the Machinery industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

HUBS

0.00

Software Industry

Max
2.14
Q3
0.90
Median
0.29
Q1
0.00
Min
0.00

HUBS’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.00 is typical for the Software industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

FTV

6.04

Machinery Industry

Max
67.55
Q3
33.79
Median
13.87
Q1
7.97
Min
-1.43

In the lower quartile for the Machinery industry, FTV’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 6.04 indicates a tighter cushion for servicing debt, suggesting less financial flexibility than many of its competitors.

HUBS

-2.05

Software Industry

Max
67.02
Q3
19.86
Median
0.70
Q1
-12.50
Min
-53.00

HUBS has a negative Interest Coverage Ratio of -2.05. This indicates that its earnings were insufficient to cover even its operational costs, let alone its interest payments, signaling significant financial distress.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolFTVHUBS
Current Ratio (MRQ)0.981.79
Quick Ratio (MRQ)0.771.70
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.460.00
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)6.04-2.05

Growth

Revenue Growth

FTV vs. HUBS: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

FTV vs. HUBS: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

FTV

0.67%

Machinery Industry

Max
5.32%
Q3
2.84%
Median
1.87%
Q1
1.09%
Min
0.00%

FTV’s Dividend Yield of 0.67% is in the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

HUBS

0.00%

Software Industry

Max
0.08%
Q3
0.03%
Median
0.00%
Q1
0.00%
Min
0.00%

HUBS currently does not pay a dividend, resulting in a yield of 0%. This is a common strategy for growth-focused companies that prioritize reinvesting earnings, though it may be less typical in mature, income-oriented sectors.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

FTV

14.22%

Machinery Industry

Max
202.17%
Q3
98.65%
Median
55.54%
Q1
29.03%
Min
0.00%

FTV’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 14.22% is in the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

HUBS

0.00%

Software Industry

Max
1.32%
Q3
0.53%
Median
0.00%
Q1
0.00%
Min
0.00%

HUBS has a Dividend Payout Ratio of 0%, indicating it does not currently pay a dividend. This is a common strategy for growth-oriented companies that reinvest all profits back into the business.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolFTVHUBS
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.67%0.00%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)14.22%0.00%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

FTV

21.25

Machinery Industry

Max
53.66
Q3
31.29
Median
22.00
Q1
16.18
Min
7.00

FTV’s P/E Ratio of 21.25 is within the middle range for the Machinery industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

HUBS

--

Software Industry

Max
149.35
Q3
100.21
Median
47.97
Q1
26.77
Min
11.68

P/E Ratio data for HUBS is currently unavailable.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

FTV

2.66

Machinery Industry

Max
5.04
Q3
2.72
Median
1.67
Q1
1.04
Min
0.24

FTV’s P/S Ratio of 2.66 aligns with the market consensus for the Machinery industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

HUBS

8.20

Software Industry

Max
25.24
Q3
13.52
Median
8.15
Q1
4.87
Min
0.98

HUBS’s P/S Ratio of 8.20 aligns with the market consensus for the Software industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

FTV

2.34

Machinery Industry

Max
7.23
Q3
3.90
Median
2.52
Q1
1.47
Min
0.49

FTV’s P/B Ratio of 2.34 is within the conventional range for the Machinery industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

HUBS

14.22

Software Industry

Max
30.95
Q3
14.91
Median
7.75
Q1
3.60
Min
0.38

HUBS’s P/B Ratio of 14.22 is within the conventional range for the Software industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

FTV vs. HUBS: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Machinery and Software industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolFTVHUBS
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)21.25--
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)2.668.20
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)2.3414.22
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)11.7945.56