Restaurants
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LOCO vs FRSH vs HUBS vs JACK
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Application
Software - Application
Restaurants
LOCO vs FRSH vs HUBS vs JACK — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Software - Application | Software - Application | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $405M | $2.50B | $12.58B | $266M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $490M | $871M | $3.30B | $1.35B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $26M | $180M | $100M | $-69M |
| Gross Margin | 28.6% | 85.0% | 83.7% | 27.6% |
| Operating Margin | 8.7% | 1.8% | 1.9% | -2.8% |
| Forward P/E | 13.9x | 15.9x | 19.6x | 4.0x |
| Total Debt | $240M | $67M | $485M | $3.12B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $632M | $882M | $52M |
LOCO vs FRSH vs HUBS vs JACK — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Pollo Loco Holdi… (LOCO) | 100 | 79.9 | -20.1% |
| Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) | 100 | 21.2 | -78.8% |
| HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) | 100 | 36.1 | -63.9% |
| Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK) | 100 | 14.3 | -85.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LOCO vs FRSH vs HUBS vs JACK
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LOCO has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.83
- Beta 0.83 vs JACK's 1.69
- +52.1% vs HUBS's -62.0%
FRSH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.15, Low D/E 6.4%, current ratio 2.14x
- Beta 1.15, current ratio 2.14x
- 20.7% margin vs JACK's -5.2%
- 11.9% ROA vs JACK's -2.7%, ROIC 2.0% vs -0.6%
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 LOCO's 28.2%
- 19.2% revenue growth vs JACK's -6.7%
JACK is the clearest fit if your priority is value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (4.0x vs 19.6x)
- 6.3% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.2% revenue growth vs JACK's -6.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.0x vs 19.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.7% margin vs JACK's -5.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs JACK's 1.69 | |
| Dividends | 6.3% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.1% vs HUBS's -62.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.9% ROA vs JACK's -2.7%, ROIC 2.0% vs -0.6% |
LOCO vs FRSH vs HUBS vs JACK — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
LOCO vs FRSH vs HUBS vs JACK — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LOCO leads in 3 of 6 categories
FRSH leads 2 • JACK leads 1 • HUBS leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FRSH 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 — 6.7x LOCO's $490M. FRSH is the more profitable business, keeping 20.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to JACK's -5.2%. On growth, HUBS holds the edge at +23.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $490M | $871M | $3.3B | $1.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $58M | $41M | $166M | $16M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $26M | $180M | $100M | -$69M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $25M | $254M | $712M | -$10M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +28.6% | +85.0% | +83.7% | +27.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +8.7% | +1.8% | +1.9% | -2.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.4% | +20.7% | +3.0% | -5.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +5.2% | +29.2% | +21.6% | -0.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +8.1% | +16.5% | +23.4% | -25.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +10.0% | — | +2.5% | +33.7% |
Valuation Metrics
JACK leads this category, winning 4 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, LOCO's 10.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than JACK's 82.9x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $405M | $2.5B | $12.6B | $266M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $638M | $1.9B | $12.2B | $3.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.01x | 14.33x | 284.08x | -3.29x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 13.93x | 15.87x | 19.61x | 4.03x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 2.60x | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.92x | 27.13x | 69.24x | 82.92x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.83x | 2.98x | 4.02x | 0.18x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.37x | 2.57x | 6.29x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 15.91x | 10.18x | 17.77x | 3.58x |
Profitability & Efficiency
FRSH leads this category, winning 5 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 LOCO's 0.82x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LOCO scores 8/9 vs JACK's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.5% | +18.5% | +5.0% | — |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +4.4% | +11.9% | +2.7% | -2.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.1% | +2.0% | +0.4% | -0.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.1% | +1.2% | +0.5% | -0.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.82x | 0.06x | 0.23x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $233M | -$566M | -$397M | $3.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $632M | $882M | $52M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $240M | $67M | $485M | $3.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 9.67x | — | 4753.07x | -0.51x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LOCO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LOCO five years ago would be worth $8,456 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,723 for JACK. Over the past 12 months, LOCO leads with a +52.1% total return vs HUBS's -62.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LOCO at 14.2% vs JACK's -42.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +30.9% | -22.2% | -36.1% | -25.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +52.1% | -36.5% | -62.0% | -47.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +49.1% | -33.0% | -45.1% | -81.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -15.4% | -81.0% | -52.1% | -82.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +28.2% | -81.0% | +469.1% | -59.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +14.2% | -12.5% | -18.1% | -42.7% |
Risk & Volatility
LOCO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
LOCO is the less volatile stock with a 0.83 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than JACK's 1.69 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LOCO currently trades 93.2% 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 | 0.83x | 1.15x | 1.18x | 1.69x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $14.50 | $16.14 | $682.57 | $29.40 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $8.82 | $6.79 | $187.45 | $8.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.2% | +55.9% | +35.8% | +47.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.5 | 57.4 | 51.1 | 58.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 321K | 7.8M | 1.5M | 837K |
Analyst Outlook
LOCO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LOCO as "Hold", FRSH as "Buy", HUBS as "Buy", JACK as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 47.7% upside for HUBS (target: $361) vs -9.3% for LOCO (target: $12). JACK is the only dividend payer here at 6.25% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $12.25 | $11.43 | $360.89 | $19.92 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 18 | 47 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +6.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | — | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.87 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.5% | +15.5% | +4.0% | +1.9% |
LOCO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). FRSH leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency).
LOCO vs FRSH vs HUBS vs JACK: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK a better buy right now?
For growth investors, HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) is the stronger pick with 19. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 7% for Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK). 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 Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) a "Buy" — based on 18 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 — LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK?
On trailing P/E, Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the cheapest at 14. 3x versus HubSpot, Inc. at 284. 1x. On forward P/E, Jack in the Box Inc. is actually cheaper at 4. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK?
Over the past 5 years, El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.
(LOCO) delivered a total return of -15. 4%, compared to -82. 8% for Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK). 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 — LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.
(LOCO) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 83β versus Jack in the Box Inc. 's 1. 69β — meaning JACK is approximately 104% more volatile than LOCO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 82% for El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) is pulling ahead at 19. 2% versus -6. 7% for Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: HubSpot, Inc. grew EPS 863. 0% year-over-year, compared to -127. 6% for Jack in the Box 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 — LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK?
Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 9% net margin versus -5. 5% for Jack in the Box Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LOCO leads at 8. 7% versus -1. 2% for JACK. 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 LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Jack in the Box Inc.
(JACK) trades at 4. 0x forward P/E versus 19. 6x for HubSpot, Inc. — 15. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HUBS: 47. 7% to $360. 89.
08Which pays a better dividend — LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK?
In this comparison, JACK (6.
3% yield) pays a dividend. LOCO, FRSH, HUBS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LOCO or FRSH or HUBS or JACK better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.
(LOCO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 83)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (LOCO: +28. 2%, 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 LOCO and FRSH and HUBS and JACK?
These companies operate in different sectors (LOCO (Consumer Cyclical) and FRSH (Technology) and HUBS (Technology) and JACK (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: LOCO is a small-cap deep-value stock; FRSH is a small-cap high-growth stock; HUBS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; JACK is a small-cap income-oriented stock. JACK pays a dividend while LOCO, 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.