Food Distribution
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CVGW vs FRSH vs HUBS vs CRM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Application
Software - Application
Software - Application
CVGW vs FRSH vs HUBS vs CRM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Food Distribution | Software - Application | Software - Application | Software - Application |
| Market Cap | $495M | $2.50B | $12.58B | $179.19B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $616M | $871M | $3.30B | $41.52B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $18M | $180M | $100M | $7.46B |
| Gross Margin | 10.2% | 85.0% | 83.7% | 77.7% |
| Operating Margin | 2.1% | 1.8% | 1.9% | 21.5% |
| Forward P/E | 19.6x | 15.9x | 19.6x | 15.8x |
| Total Debt | $23M | $67M | $485M | $6.74B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $61M | $632M | $882M | $7.33B |
CVGW vs FRSH vs HUBS vs CRM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calavo Growers, Inc. (CVGW) | 100 | 72.4 | -27.6% |
| Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) | 100 | 21.2 | -78.8% |
| HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) | 100 | 36.1 | -63.9% |
| Salesforce, Inc. (CRM) | 100 | 68.7 | -31.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CVGW vs FRSH vs HUBS vs CRM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CVGW carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.44, yield 2.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.44, Low D/E 11.3%, current ratio 2.47x
- Beta 0.44, yield 2.9%, current ratio 2.47x
- Beta 0.44 vs HUBS's 1.18, lower leverage
FRSH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 20.7% margin vs CVGW's 2.9%
- 11.9% ROA vs HUBS's 2.7%, ROIC 2.0% vs 0.4%
HUBS is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 19.2%, EPS growth 8.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 21.8%
- 469.1% 10Y total return vs CRM's 154.6%
- 19.2% revenue growth vs CVGW's -2.0%
CRM is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (15.8x vs 19.6x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.2% revenue growth vs CVGW's -2.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.8x vs 19.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.7% margin vs CVGW's 2.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.44 vs HUBS's 1.18, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.9% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs CRM's 0.9%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +10.2% vs HUBS's -62.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.9% ROA vs HUBS's 2.7%, ROIC 2.0% vs 0.4% |
CVGW vs FRSH vs HUBS vs CRM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CVGW vs FRSH vs HUBS vs CRM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CVGW leads in 2 of 6 categories
CRM leads 2 • FRSH leads 0 • HUBS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — FRSH and HUBS and CRM each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CRM is the larger business by revenue, generating $41.5B annually — 67.4x CVGW's $616M. FRSH is the more profitable business, keeping 20.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CVGW's 2.9%. On growth, HUBS holds the edge at +23.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $616M | $871M | $3.3B | $41.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $19M | $41M | $166M | $11.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $18M | $180M | $100M | $7.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $15M | $254M | $712M | $14.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +10.2% | +85.0% | +83.7% | +77.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +2.1% | +1.8% | +1.9% | +21.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.9% | +20.7% | +3.0% | +18.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.4% | +29.2% | +21.6% | +34.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -20.8% | +16.5% | +23.4% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -84.0% | — | +2.5% | +18.3% |
Valuation Metrics
CVGW leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.3x trailing earnings, FRSH trades at a 95% valuation discount to HUBS's 284.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, CVGW's 16.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than HUBS's 69.2x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $495M | $2.5B | $12.6B | $179.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $457M | $1.9B | $12.2B | $178.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 24.95x | 14.33x | 284.08x | 23.88x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 19.65x | 15.87x | 19.61x | 15.82x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 1.95x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 16.88x | 27.13x | 69.24x | 20.03x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.76x | 2.98x | 4.02x | 4.32x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.38x | 2.57x | 6.29x | 3.01x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 25.53x | 10.18x | 17.77x | 12.44x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CRM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FRSH delivers a 18.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $19 in annual profit, vs $5 for HUBS. FRSH carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HUBS's 0.23x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CRM scores 8/9 vs HUBS's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +8.5% | +18.5% | +5.0% | +12.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.8% | +11.9% | +2.7% | +6.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.6% | +2.0% | +0.4% | +10.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.5% | +1.2% | +0.5% | +11.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.11x | 0.06x | 0.23x | 0.11x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$38M | -$566M | -$397M | -$590M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $61M | $632M | $882M | $7.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $23M | $67M | $485M | $6.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 42.51x | — | 4753.07x | 44.14x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CRM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CRM five years ago would be worth $8,775 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,899 for FRSH. Over the past 12 months, CVGW leads with a +10.2% total return vs HUBS's -62.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CRM at -1.4% vs HUBS's -18.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +29.8% | -22.2% | -36.1% | -26.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +10.2% | -36.5% | -62.0% | -32.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -4.1% | -33.0% | -45.1% | -4.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.3% | -81.0% | -52.1% | -12.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -36.5% | -81.0% | +469.1% | +154.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -1.4% | -12.5% | -18.1% | -1.4% |
Risk & Volatility
CVGW leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CVGW is the less volatile stock with a 0.44 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than HUBS's 1.18 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CVGW currently trades 95.6% from its 52-week high vs HUBS's 35.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.44x | 1.15x | 1.18x | 0.82x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $28.98 | $16.14 | $682.57 | $296.05 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $18.40 | $6.79 | $187.45 | $163.52 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +95.6% | +55.9% | +35.8% | +62.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.5 | 57.4 | 51.1 | 48.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 284K | 7.8M | 1.5M | 12.4M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CVGW and CRM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CVGW as "Buy", FRSH as "Buy", HUBS as "Buy", CRM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 54.1% upside for CRM (target: $287) vs -2.5% for CVGW (target: $27). For income investors, CVGW offers the higher dividend yield at 2.88% vs CRM's 0.89%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $27.00 | $11.43 | $360.89 | $287.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 18 | 47 | 97 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.9% | — | — | +0.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | — | — | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.80 | — | — | $1.66 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.0% | +15.5% | +4.0% | +7.0% |
CVGW leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Risk & Volatility). CRM leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). 2 tied.
CVGW vs FRSH vs HUBS vs CRM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) is the stronger pick with 19. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 0% for Calavo Growers, Inc. (CVGW). Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) offers the better valuation at 14. 3x trailing P/E (15. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Calavo Growers, Inc. (CVGW) a "Buy" — based on 10 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM?
On trailing P/E, Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the cheapest at 14. 3x versus HubSpot, Inc. at 284. 1x. On forward P/E, Salesforce, Inc. is actually cheaper at 15. 8x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM?
Over the past 5 years, Salesforce, Inc.
(CRM) delivered a total return of -12. 3%, compared to -81. 0% for Freshworks Inc. (FRSH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HUBS returned +469. 1% versus FRSH's -81. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Calavo Growers, Inc.
(CVGW) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 44β versus HubSpot, Inc. 's 1. 18β — meaning HUBS is approximately 171% more volatile than CVGW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 23% for HubSpot, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) is pulling ahead at 19. 2% versus -2. 0% for Calavo Growers, Inc. (CVGW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Calavo Growers, Inc. grew EPS 1950% year-over-year, compared to 22. 6% for Salesforce, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, HUBS leads at 21. 8% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM?
Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 9% net margin versus 1. 5% for HubSpot, Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CRM leads at 21. 5% versus 0. 4% for HUBS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FRSH leads at 85. 0%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Salesforce, Inc.
(CRM) trades at 15. 8x forward P/E versus 19. 6x for Calavo Growers, Inc. — 3. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CRM: 54. 1% to $287. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM?
In this comparison, CVGW (2.
9% yield), CRM (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. FRSH, HUBS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CVGW or FRSH or HUBS or CRM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Calavo Growers, Inc.
(CVGW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 44), 2. 9% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CVGW: -36. 5%, FRSH: -81. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between CVGW and FRSH and HUBS and CRM?
These companies operate in different sectors (CVGW (Consumer Defensive) and FRSH (Technology) and HUBS (Technology) and CRM (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CVGW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FRSH is a small-cap high-growth stock; HUBS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CRM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. CVGW, CRM pay a dividend while FRSH, HUBS do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.