Software - Application
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FROG vs TEAM vs HUBS vs GTLB vs MSFT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Application
Software - Application
Software - Application
Software - Infrastructure
FROG vs TEAM vs HUBS vs GTLB vs MSFT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Application | Software - Application | Software - Application | Software - Application | Software - Infrastructure |
| Market Cap | $6.91B | $24.26B | $12.58B | $4.30B | $3.13T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $563M | $6.19B | $3.30B | $957M | $318.27B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-62M | $-217M | $100M | $-56M | $125.22B |
| Gross Margin | 77.4% | 83.9% | 83.7% | 87.5% | 68.3% |
| Operating Margin | -14.9% | -3.7% | 1.9% | -12.2% | 46.8% |
| Forward P/E | 63.4x | 19.4x | 19.6x | 32.2x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $19M | $1.24B | $485M | $0.00 | $112.18B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $77M | $2.51B | $882M | $230M | $30.24B |
FROG vs TEAM vs HUBS vs GTLB vs MSFT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| JFrog Ltd. (FROG) | 100 | 174.4 | +74.4% |
| Atlassian Corporati… (TEAM) | 100 | 20.2 | -79.8% |
| HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) | 100 | 30.2 | -69.8% |
| GitLab Inc. (GTLB) | 100 | 23.1 | -76.9% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 126.9 | +26.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FROG vs TEAM vs HUBS vs GTLB vs MSFT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FROG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +65.0% vs HUBS's -62.0%
TEAM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for value.
- Lower P/E (19.4x vs 25.3x)
Among these 5 stocks, HUBS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
GTLB is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 26.0%, EPS growth -7.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 31.1%
- 26.0% revenue growth vs MSFT's 14.9%
MSFT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 0.8%
- 7.9% 10Y total return vs HUBS's 469.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.89, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- Beta 0.89, yield 0.8%, current ratio 1.35x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 26.0% revenue growth vs MSFT's 14.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (19.4x vs 25.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs FROG's -10.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.89 vs FROG's 1.24 | |
| Dividends | 0.8% yield; 19-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +65.0% vs HUBS's -62.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.2% ROA vs FROG's -4.7%, ROIC 24.9% vs -8.0% |
FROG vs TEAM vs HUBS vs GTLB vs MSFT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
FROG vs TEAM vs HUBS vs GTLB vs MSFT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSFT leads in 3 of 6 categories
TEAM leads 1 • FROG leads 1 • HUBS leads 0 • GTLB leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT is the larger business by revenue, generating $318.3B annually — 564.9x FROG's $563M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FROG's -10.9%. On growth, TEAM holds the edge at +31.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $563M | $6.2B | $3.3B | $957M | $318.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$66M | -$105M | $166M | -$104M | $192.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$62M | -$217M | $100M | -$56M | $125.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $151M | $1.2B | $712M | $222M | $72.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +77.4% | +83.9% | +83.7% | +87.5% | +68.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -14.9% | -3.7% | +1.9% | -12.2% | +46.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -10.9% | -3.5% | +3.0% | -5.8% | +39.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +26.9% | +19.5% | +21.6% | +23.2% | +22.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +25.8% | +31.7% | +23.4% | +23.9% | +18.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +56.3% | -40.7% | +2.5% | -133.3% | +23.4% |
Valuation Metrics
TEAM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 30.9x trailing earnings, MSFT trades at a 89% valuation discount to HUBS's 284.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MSFT's 19.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than HUBS's 69.2x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.9B | $24.3B | $12.6B | $4.3B | $3.13T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $6.9B | $23.0B | $12.2B | $4.1B | $3.21T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -91.97x | -94.26x | 284.08x | -74.06x | 30.86x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 63.45x | 19.42x | 19.61x | 32.24x | 25.34x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | 1.64x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 69.24x | — | 19.72x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 12.99x | 4.65x | 4.02x | 4.49x | 11.10x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.47x | 17.97x | 6.29x | 4.15x | 9.15x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 48.56x | 17.14x | 17.77x | 19.36x | 43.66x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MSFT delivers a 33.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-17 for TEAM. FROG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TEAM's 0.92x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TEAM scores 7/9 vs GTLB's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -7.0% | -16.7% | +5.0% | -5.9% | +33.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -4.7% | -3.7% | +2.7% | -3.6% | +19.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -8.0% | -110.3% | +0.4% | -12.5% | +24.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -9.6% | -4.8% | +0.5% | -12.1% | +29.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.02x | 0.92x | 0.23x | — | 0.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$57M | -$1.3B | -$397M | -$230M | $81.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $77M | $2.5B | $882M | $230M | $30.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $19M | $1.2B | $485M | $0 | $112.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -3.49x | 4753.07x | — | 55.65x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FROG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MSFT five years ago would be worth $17,246 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,495 for GTLB. Over the past 12 months, FROG leads with a +65.0% total return vs HUBS's -62.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FROG at 38.5% vs HUBS's -18.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -4.3% | -40.3% | -36.1% | -28.4% | -10.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +65.0% | -55.1% | -62.0% | -44.9% | -2.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +165.6% | -29.0% | -45.1% | -14.2% | +39.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +58.8% | -57.9% | -52.1% | -75.1% | +72.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -12.0% | +338.0% | +469.1% | -75.1% | +787.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +38.5% | -10.8% | -18.1% | -5.0% | +11.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FROG and MSFT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MSFT is the less volatile stock with a 0.89 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FROG's 1.24 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FROG currently trades 81.0% 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 | 1.24x | 0.98x | 1.18x | 1.21x | 0.89x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $70.43 | $232.36 | $682.57 | $54.08 | $555.45 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $33.74 | $56.01 | $187.45 | $18.74 | $356.28 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +81.0% | +39.8% | +35.8% | +47.9% | +75.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 67.3 | 64.5 | 51.1 | 59.3 | 54.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.7M | 7.5M | 1.5M | 6.4M | 32.5M |
Analyst Outlook
MSFT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FROG as "Buy", TEAM as "Buy", HUBS as "Buy", GTLB as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 49.2% upside for TEAM (target: $138) vs 20.5% for FROG (target: $69). MSFT is the only dividend payer here at 0.77% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $68.71 | $137.79 | $360.89 | $36.13 | $551.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 22 | 42 | 47 | 30 | 81 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +0.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 2 | — | — | 19 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $3.23 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +3.2% | +4.0% | +0.3% | +0.6% |
MSFT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). TEAM leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
FROG vs TEAM vs HUBS vs GTLB vs MSFT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, GitLab Inc.
(GTLB) is the stronger pick with 26. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 14. 9% for Microsoft Corporation (MSFT). Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) offers the better valuation at 30. 9x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate JFrog Ltd. (FROG) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 — FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT?
On trailing P/E, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the cheapest at 30.
9x versus HubSpot, Inc. at 284. 1x. On forward P/E, Atlassian Corporation is actually cheaper at 19. 4x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT?
Over the past 5 years, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) delivered a total return of +72.
5%, compared to -75. 1% for GitLab Inc. (GTLB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MSFT returned +787. 7% versus GTLB's -75. 1%. 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 — FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
89β versus JFrog Ltd. 's 1. 24β — meaning FROG is approximately 40% more volatile than MSFT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, JFrog Ltd. (FROG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 92% for Atlassian Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), GitLab Inc.
(GTLB) is pulling ahead at 26. 0% versus 14. 9% for Microsoft Corporation (MSFT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: HubSpot, Inc. grew EPS 863. 0% year-over-year, compared to -775. 0% for GitLab Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GTLB leads at 31. 1% 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 — FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -13. 5% for JFrog Ltd. — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus -15. 7% for FROG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GTLB leads at 87. 5%, 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 FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Atlassian Corporation (TEAM) trades at 19.
4x forward P/E versus 63. 4x for JFrog Ltd. — 44. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TEAM: 49. 2% to $137. 79.
08Which pays a better dividend — FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT?
In this comparison, MSFT (0.
8% yield) pays a dividend. FROG, TEAM, HUBS, GTLB do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FROG or TEAM or HUBS or GTLB or MSFT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
89), 0. 8% yield, +787. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +787. 7%, GTLB: -75. 1%), 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 FROG and TEAM and HUBS and GTLB and MSFT?
Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: FROG is a small-cap high-growth stock; TEAM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; HUBS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; GTLB is a small-cap high-growth stock; MSFT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. MSFT pays a dividend while FROG, TEAM, HUBS, GTLB 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.