Packaged Foods
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
SNAX vs FRSH vs AMZN vs HUBS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Software - Application
Specialty Retail
Software - Application
SNAX vs FRSH vs AMZN vs HUBS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Software - Application | Specialty Retail | Software - Application |
| Market Cap | $144K | $2.63B | $2.65T | $9.53B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $19M | $871M | $742.78B | $3.30B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-15M | $180M | $90.80B | $100M |
| Gross Margin | 10.5% | 85.0% | 50.6% | 83.7% |
| Operating Margin | -60.4% | 1.8% | 11.5% | 1.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | 15.2x | 28.0x | 14.2x |
| Total Debt | $24M | $67M | $152.99B | $485M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $369K | $632M | $86.81B | $882M |
SNAX vs FRSH vs AMZN vs HUBS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stryve Foods, Inc. (SNAX) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) | 100 | 22.7 | -77.3% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 164.8 | +64.8% |
| HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) | 100 | 32.6 | -67.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SNAX vs FRSH vs AMZN vs HUBS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SNAX lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
FRSH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 20.7% margin vs SNAX's -79.1%
- 11.9% ROA vs SNAX's -47.8%, ROIC 2.0% vs -39.0%
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 5.9% 10Y total return vs HUBS's 284.1%
- +13.9% vs SNAX's -87.3%
HUBS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- beta 0.81
- Rev growth 19.2%, EPS growth 8.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 21.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.81, Low D/E 23.5%, current ratio 1.52x
- Beta 0.81, current ratio 1.52x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.2% revenue growth vs SNAX's -40.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.2x vs 28.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.7% margin vs SNAX's -79.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.81 vs AMZN's 1.43, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +13.9% vs SNAX's -87.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.9% ROA vs SNAX's -47.8%, ROIC 2.0% vs -39.0% |
SNAX vs FRSH vs AMZN vs HUBS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
SNAX vs FRSH vs AMZN vs HUBS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FRSH leads in 2 of 6 categories
SNAX leads 1 • AMZN leads 1 • HUBS leads 0 • 1 tied
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)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 38358.6x SNAX's $19M. FRSH is the more profitable business, keeping 20.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SNAX's -79.1%. On growth, SNAX holds the edge at +36.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $19M | $871M | $742.8B | $3.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$9M | $41M | $155.9B | $207M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$15M | $180M | $90.8B | $100M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$6M | $254M | -$2.5B | $712M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +10.5% | +85.0% | +50.6% | +83.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -60.4% | +1.8% | +11.5% | +1.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -79.1% | +20.7% | +12.2% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -32.2% | +29.2% | -0.3% | +21.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +36.4% | +16.5% | +16.6% | +23.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +55.6% | — | +74.8% | +2.5% |
Valuation Metrics
SNAX leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.1x trailing earnings, FRSH trades at a 93% valuation discount to HUBS's 216.3x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, AMZN's 18.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than HUBS's 51.9x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $143,748 | $2.6B | $2.65T | $9.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $24M | $2.1B | $2.71T | $9.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.00x | 15.10x | 34.32x | 216.35x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 15.24x | 27.99x | 14.21x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.23x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 28.99x | 18.62x | 51.92x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.01x | 3.13x | 3.69x | 3.04x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.05x | 2.71x | 6.48x | 4.79x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 10.72x | 343.94x | 13.47x |
Profitability & Efficiency
FRSH leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AMZN delivers a 23.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $23 in annual profit, vs $-2 for SNAX. FRSH carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SNAX's 15.06x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FRSH scores 7/9 vs SNAX's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -2.1% | +18.5% | +23.3% | +5.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -47.8% | +11.9% | +11.5% | +2.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -39.0% | +2.0% | +14.7% | +0.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -62.4% | +1.2% | +15.3% | +0.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 15.06x | 0.06x | 0.37x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $24M | -$566M | $66.2B | -$397M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $369,114 | $632M | $86.8B | $882M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $24M | $67M | $153.0B | $485M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -3.69x | — | 39.96x | 222.86x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AMZN leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AMZN five years ago would be worth $14,548 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2 for SNAX. Over the past 12 months, AMZN leads with a +13.9% total return vs SNAX's -87.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMZN at 24.6% vs SNAX's -85.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1000.0% | -18.0% | +8.7% | -51.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -87.3% | -38.5% | +13.9% | -66.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.7% | -44.8% | +93.6% | -64.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -80.0% | +45.5% | -65.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -80.0% | +589.2% | +284.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -85.1% | -18.0% | +24.6% | -29.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SNAX and AMZN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SNAX is the less volatile stock with a -3.16 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AMZN's 1.43 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AMZN currently trades 88.3% from its 52-week high vs SNAX's 8.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -3.16x | 0.86x | 1.43x | 0.81x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.39 | $15.54 | $278.56 | $568.16 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.00 | $6.79 | $197.28 | $173.25 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +8.5% | +61.2% | +88.3% | +32.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 66.4 | 54.1 | 34.8 | 40.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 584 | 10.9M | 42.8M | 1.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FRSH as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy", HUBS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 53.3% upside for HUBS (target: $285) vs 22.3% for FRSH (target: $12).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $11.63 | $307.77 | $285.14 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 18 | 94 | 47 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +14.7% | 0.0% | +5.2% |
FRSH leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). SNAX leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
SNAX vs FRSH vs AMZN vs HUBS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) is the stronger pick with 19. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -40. 9% for Stryve Foods, Inc. (SNAX). Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) offers the better valuation at 15. 1x trailing P/E (15. 2x 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 — SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS?
On trailing P/E, Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the cheapest at 15. 1x versus HubSpot, Inc. at 216. 3x. On forward P/E, HubSpot, Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS?
Over the past 5 years, Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) delivered a total return of +45. 5%, compared to -100. 0% for Stryve Foods, Inc. (SNAX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +589. 2% versus SNAX's -100. 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 — SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Stryve Foods, Inc.
(SNAX) is the lower-risk stock at -3. 16β versus Amazon. com, Inc. 's 1. 43β — meaning AMZN is approximately -145% more volatile than SNAX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 15% for Stryve Foods, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) is pulling ahead at 19. 2% versus -40. 9% for Stryve Foods, Inc. (SNAX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: HubSpot, Inc. grew EPS 863. 0% year-over-year, compared to 29. 7% for Amazon. com, 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 — SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS?
Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 9% net margin versus -107. 5% for Stryve Foods, Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMZN leads at 11. 2% versus -87. 1% for SNAX. 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 SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, HubSpot, Inc.
(HUBS) trades at 14. 2x forward P/E versus 28. 0x for Amazon. com, Inc. — 13. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HUBS: 53. 3% to $285. 14.
08Which pays a better dividend — SNAX or FRSH or AMZN 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 SNAX or FRSH or AMZN or HUBS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Stryve Foods, Inc.
(SNAX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -3. 16)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SNAX: -100. 0%, AMZN: +589. 2%), 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 SNAX and FRSH and AMZN and HUBS?
These companies operate in different sectors (SNAX (Consumer Defensive) and FRSH (Technology) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and HUBS (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: SNAX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FRSH is a small-cap high-growth stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; HUBS is a small-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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.