Software - Application
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CXM vs TTGT vs ZETA vs HUBS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Internet Content & Information
Software - Application
Software - Application
CXM vs TTGT vs ZETA vs HUBS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Application | Internet Content & Information | Software - Application | Software - Application |
| Market Cap | $1.34B | $468M | $3.81B | $12.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $857M | $261M | $1.44B | $3.30B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $23M | $-556M | $-23M | $100M |
| Gross Margin | 67.4% | 111.7% | 63.8% | 83.7% |
| Operating Margin | 4.7% | -275.4% | -0.0% | 1.9% |
| Forward P/E | 12.0x | — | 18.7x | 19.6x |
| Total Debt | $47M | $111M | $197M | $485M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $163M | $41M | $320M | $882M |
CXM vs TTGT vs ZETA vs HUBS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sprinklr, Inc. (CXM) | 100 | 26.5 | -73.5% |
| TechTarget, Inc. (TTGT) | 100 | 8.3 | -91.7% |
| Zeta Global Holding… (ZETA) | 100 | 205.7 | +105.7% |
| HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) | 100 | 41.9 | -58.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CXM vs TTGT vs ZETA vs HUBS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CXM has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.82
- Lower volatility, beta 0.82, Low D/E 7.9%, current ratio 1.60x
- Beta 0.82, current ratio 1.60x
- Lower P/E (12.0x vs 19.6x)
TTGT is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 70.9%, EPS growth -247.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 35.2%
- 70.9% revenue growth vs CXM's 7.6%
ZETA is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +30.9% vs HUBS's -62.0%
HUBS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 469.1% 10Y total return vs ZETA's 94.4%
- 3.0% margin vs TTGT's -212.8%
- 2.7% ROA vs TTGT's -57.0%, ROIC 0.4% vs -2.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 70.9% revenue growth vs CXM's 7.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.0x vs 19.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.0% margin vs TTGT's -212.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.82 vs ZETA's 2.79, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +30.9% vs HUBS's -62.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 2.7% ROA vs TTGT's -57.0%, ROIC 0.4% vs -2.0% |
CXM vs TTGT vs ZETA vs HUBS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CXM vs TTGT vs ZETA vs HUBS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HUBS leads in 1 of 6 categories
TTGT leads 1 • ZETA leads 1 • CXM leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HUBS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HUBS is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.3B annually — 12.6x TTGT's $261M. HUBS is the more profitable business, keeping 3.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TTGT's -2.1%. On growth, ZETA holds the edge at +49.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $857M | $261M | $1.4B | $3.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $48M | -$640M | $77M | $166M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $23M | -$556M | -$23M | $100M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $155M | -$4M | $200M | $712M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +67.4% | +111.7% | +63.8% | +83.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +4.7% | -2.8% | -0.0% | +1.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.7% | -2.1% | -1.6% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +18.1% | -1.6% | +13.9% | +21.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +8.9% | -99.8% | +49.9% | +23.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -90.1% | +86.6% | +100.0% | +2.5% |
Valuation Metrics
TTGT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 60.6x trailing earnings, CXM trades at a 79% valuation discount to HUBS's 284.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, TTGT's 7.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than HUBS's 69.2x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.3B | $468M | $3.8B | $12.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.2B | $538M | $3.7B | $12.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 60.56x | -0.46x | -123.43x | 284.08x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.01x | — | 18.71x | 19.61x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 30.40x | 7.39x | 47.63x | 69.24x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.56x | 0.96x | 2.92x | 4.02x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.37x | 0.78x | 4.78x | 6.29x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 8.49x | 29.32x | 20.58x | 17.77x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — CXM and HUBS each lead in 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HUBS delivers a 5.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $5 in annual profit, vs $-93 for TTGT. CXM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.08x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ZETA's 0.24x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CXM scores 6/9 vs ZETA's 5/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +3.9% | -93.2% | -3.0% | +5.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.0% | -57.0% | -1.8% | +2.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.1% | -2.0% | +0.7% | +0.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.1% | -2.5% | +0.5% | +0.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.08x | 0.19x | 0.24x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$116M | $71M | -$123M | -$397M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $163M | $41M | $320M | $882M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $47M | $111M | $197M | $485M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -95.68x | 5.22x | 4753.07x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ZETA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ZETA five years ago would be worth $19,438 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $874 for TTGT. Over the past 12 months, ZETA leads with a +30.9% total return vs HUBS's -62.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ZETA at 27.8% vs TTGT's -42.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -25.5% | +25.1% | -13.2% | -36.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -29.6% | -18.0% | +30.9% | -62.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -52.0% | -80.6% | +108.9% | -45.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -69.0% | -91.3% | +94.4% | -52.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -69.0% | -19.2% | +94.4% | +469.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -21.7% | -42.1% | +27.8% | -18.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CXM and ZETA each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CXM is the less volatile stock with a 0.82 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ZETA's 2.79 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ZETA currently trades 69.4% 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 | 0.82x | 1.35x | 2.79x | 1.18x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.40 | $9.47 | $24.90 | $682.57 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.71 | $3.41 | $12.10 | $187.45 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +58.0% | +68.3% | +69.4% | +35.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.1 | 71.9 | 48.5 | 51.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3.4M | 476K | 7.3M | 1.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CXM as "Hold", TTGT as "Buy", ZETA as "Buy", HUBS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 131.8% upside for TTGT (target: $15) vs 30.8% for CXM (target: $7).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.13 | $15.00 | $26.33 | $360.89 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 17 | 16 | 15 | 47 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.4% | 0.0% | +3.2% | +4.0% |
HUBS leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). TTGT leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
CXM vs TTGT vs ZETA vs HUBS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, TechTarget, Inc.
(TTGT) is the stronger pick with 70. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 6% for Sprinklr, Inc. (CXM). Sprinklr, Inc. (CXM) offers the better valuation at 60. 6x trailing P/E (12. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate TechTarget, Inc. (TTGT) a "Buy" — based on 16 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 — CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS?
On trailing P/E, Sprinklr, Inc.
(CXM) is the cheapest at 60. 6x versus HubSpot, Inc. at 284. 1x. On forward P/E, Sprinklr, Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 0x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS?
Over the past 5 years, Zeta Global Holdings Corp.
(ZETA) delivered a total return of +94. 4%, compared to -91. 3% for TechTarget, Inc. (TTGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HUBS returned +469. 1% versus CXM's -69. 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 — CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Sprinklr, Inc.
(CXM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 82β versus Zeta Global Holdings Corp. 's 2. 79β — meaning ZETA is approximately 240% more volatile than CXM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Sprinklr, Inc. (CXM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 24% for Zeta Global Holdings Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), TechTarget, Inc.
(TTGT) is pulling ahead at 70. 9% versus 7. 6% for Sprinklr, Inc. (CXM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: HubSpot, Inc. grew EPS 863. 0% year-over-year, compared to -247. 2% for TechTarget, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, TTGT leads at 35. 2% 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 — CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS?
Sprinklr, Inc.
(CXM) is the more profitable company, earning 2. 7% net margin versus -207. 1% for TechTarget, Inc. — meaning it keeps 2. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CXM leads at 4. 7% versus -6. 6% for TTGT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HUBS leads at 83. 8%, 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 CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Sprinklr, Inc.
(CXM) trades at 12. 0x forward P/E versus 19. 6x for HubSpot, Inc. — 7. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TTGT: 131. 8% to $15. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
09Is CXM or TTGT or ZETA or HUBS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 18), +469. 1% 10Y return). Zeta Global Holdings Corp. (ZETA) carries a higher beta of 2. 79 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (HUBS: +469. 1%, ZETA: +94. 4%), 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 CXM and TTGT and ZETA and HUBS?
These companies operate in different sectors (CXM (Technology) and TTGT (Communication Services) and ZETA (Technology) and HUBS (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CXM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TTGT is a small-cap high-growth stock; ZETA is a small-cap high-growth stock; HUBS is a mid-cap high-growth stock. 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.