vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HUBSPOT INC (HUBS) and VEEVA SYSTEMS INC (VEEV), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
HUBSPOT INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($846.7M vs $811.2M, roughly 1.0× VEEVA SYSTEMS INC). VEEVA SYSTEMS INC runs the higher net margin — 6.4% vs 29.1%, a 22.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, HUBSPOT INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (20.4% vs 16.0%). Over the past eight quarters, HUBSPOT INC's revenue compounded faster (17.1% CAGR vs 13.4%).
HubSpot, Inc. is a US-based developer and marketer of software products for marketing, sales, and customer service. HubSpot was founded by Brian Halligan and Dharmesh Shah in 2006. The global headquarters is in Cambridge, MA.
Veeva Systems Inc., headquartered in Pleasanton, California, provides cloud software, data, and business consulting for the life sciences industry. Its software is used to manage data, track regulatory registrations, and oversee supply chains. The company is a public benefit corporation.
HUBS vs VEEV — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $846.7M | $811.2M |
| Net Profit | $54.4M | $236.2M |
| Gross Margin | 83.7% | 75.4% |
| Operating Margin | 5.7% | 29.7% |
| Net Margin | 6.4% | 29.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 20.4% | 16.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 992.2% | 27.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.03 | $1.40 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $846.7M | $811.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $809.5M | $789.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $760.9M | $759.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $714.1M | $720.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $703.2M | $699.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $669.7M | $676.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $637.2M | $650.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $617.4M | $630.6M |
| Q4 25 | $54.4M | $236.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $16.5M | $200.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.3M | $228.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-21.8M | $195.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0M | $185.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.1M | $171.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-14.4M | $161.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.9M | $147.4M |
| Q4 25 | 83.7% | 75.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 83.5% | 75.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 83.9% | 77.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 83.9% | 74.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 85.3% | 75.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 85.2% | 74.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 85.0% | 73.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 84.6% | 72.4% |
| Q4 25 | 5.7% | 29.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | 24.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.2% | 30.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.8% | 26.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -1.5% | 25.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 24.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.8% | 23.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -3.8% | 21.4% |
| Q4 25 | 6.4% | 29.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.0% | 25.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.4% | 30.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.1% | 27.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.7% | 26.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | 25.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.3% | 24.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.0% | 23.4% |
| Q4 25 | $1.03 | $1.40 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.31 | $1.19 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.06 | $1.37 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.42 | $1.17 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.09 | $1.13 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.16 | $1.04 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.28 | $0.98 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.12 | $0.90 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $882.2M | $1.7B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.1B | $7.0B |
| Total Assets | $3.9B | $8.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $882.2M | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $614.4M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $601.2M | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $625.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $512.7M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $410.1M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $797.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $447.8M | $703.5M |
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $7.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $6.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $6.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.0B | $5.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $5.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $5.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $4.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $4.6B |
| Q4 25 | $3.9B | $8.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.5B | $8.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.7B | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.9B | $7.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.8B | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | $6.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2B | $5.9B |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $247.4M | $192.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $234.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 27.6% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.6% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.55× | 0.82× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $707.6M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $247.4M | $192.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $187.4M | $238.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $164.4M | $877.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $161.6M | $69.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $194.1M | $164.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $159.5M | $92.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $117.8M | $763.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $127.1M | $57.8M |
| Q4 25 | $234.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $177.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $148.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $148.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $181.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $148.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $109.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $121.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | 27.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 25.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 19.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 4.55× | 0.82× | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.33× | 1.19× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.84× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.36× | ||
| Q4 24 | 38.96× | 0.88× | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.59× | 0.54× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.72× | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.42× | 0.39× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HUBS
| Subscription And Circulation | $829.0M | 98% |
| Services | $17.8M | 2% |
VEEV
| Subscription Services Veeva Research And Development | $364.8M | 45% |
| Subscription Services Veeva Commercial Cloud | $317.6M | 39% |
| Professional Services Veeva Research And Development | $81.3M | 10% |
| Professional Services Veeva Commercial Cloud | $47.5M | 6% |
