HubSpot Snowflake Data

Name: HubSpot Snowflake Data
Brand: HubSpot

Leader

The agentic customer platform to scale your business.

Est 2006|Valuation $11.3B|Raised $130M

LinkedIn 1.7M|Website|Web traffic 33.9M|FTEs 9,000|HQ Cambridge, Massachusetts, US

MarketsData Integration (ETL/ELT)

01Competitive Landscape

Top competitor comparison (focused on HubSpot ↔ Snowflake data movement)

| Aspect | HubSpot Snowflake Data (Data Share / Ingestion) | Fivetran (HubSpot connector) | Airbyte (HubSpot connector) | |--------|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Starting Price | Published enterprise pricing available from the vendor; separate Snowflake subscription required | Usage-based; community feedback often cites cost sensitivity for large volumes | Open-source core with paid hosted options; total cost varies by deployment and support model | | Best For | Organizations that operate HubSpot as their primary CRM and want an integrated path to query HubSpot data in Snowflake and, in some cases, to bring warehouse attributes back into HubSpot | Teams wanting a managed ELT service with a mature connector and operational support | Teams seeking flexibility and control, with willingness to manage operations or adopt hosted managed services | | Key Strength | Integrated publishing of HubSpot data into Snowflake Marketplace, which can avoid some API-based extraction patterns | Managed connector that handles operational cases and scale for many customers | Customizable connector platform; community-driven development and lower entry cost options | | Key Weakness | Capabilities for ingestion are described as beta in places; the feature set is tied to HubSpot packaging and lacks a full ELT control plane | Perceived cost at scale is a common concern among community users | Support and operational maturity may lag managed commercial offerings | Evidence used for the comparison includes vendor pricing materials, marketplace listings, community discussions comparing extraction approaches, and vendor and community content about ELT trade-offs.

Narrative analysis

- Where HubSpot is likely to be advantageous: - When the primary objective is to run HubSpot analytics in Snowflake without developing and operating API-based extraction jobs, the Data Share model is a structurally relevant option because it avoids some API extraction patterns. - Using Snowflake’s sharing model can simplify certain governance aspects relative to maintaining bespoke pipelines for export. - Where competitors are likely advantageous: - Dedicated ELT providers (Fivetran, Airbyte, Stitch) provide more granular pipeline controls, transformation capabilities, and broader connector coverage that are useful when the warehouse integrates many non-HubSpot sources. - Market adoption signals: - HubSpot Marketplace shows more installs for the Data Share listing than for the ingestion app, but the marketplace review counts are small and should not be over-interpreted.

01Competitive Landscape

Top competitor comparison (focused on HubSpot ↔ Snowflake data movement)

Aspect	HubSpot Snowflake Data (Data Share / Ingestion)	Fivetran (HubSpot connector)	Airbyte (HubSpot connector)
Starting Price	Published enterprise pricing available from the vendor; separate Snowflake subscription required	Usage-based; community feedback often cites cost sensitivity for large volumes	Open-source core with paid hosted options; total cost varies by deployment and support model
Best For	Organizations that operate HubSpot as their primary CRM and want an integrated path to query HubSpot data in Snowflake and, in some cases, to bring warehouse attributes back into HubSpot	Teams wanting a managed ELT service with a mature connector and operational support	Teams seeking flexibility and control, with willingness to manage operations or adopt hosted managed services
Key Strength	Integrated publishing of HubSpot data into Snowflake Marketplace, which can avoid some API-based extraction patterns	Managed connector that handles operational cases and scale for many customers	Customizable connector platform; community-driven development and lower entry cost options
Key Weakness	Capabilities for ingestion are described as beta in places; the feature set is tied to HubSpot packaging and lacks a full ELT control plane	Perceived cost at scale is a common concern among community users	Support and operational maturity may lag managed commercial offerings

Evidence used for the comparison includes vendor pricing materials, marketplace listings, community discussions comparing extraction approaches, and vendor and community content about ELT trade-offs.

Narrative analysis

Where HubSpot is likely to be advantageous:
- When the primary objective is to run HubSpot analytics in Snowflake without developing and operating API-based extraction jobs, the Data Share model is a structurally relevant option because it avoids some API extraction patterns.
- Using Snowflake’s sharing model can simplify certain governance aspects relative to maintaining bespoke pipelines for export.
Where competitors are likely advantageous:
- Dedicated ELT providers (Fivetran, Airbyte, Stitch) provide more granular pipeline controls, transformation capabilities, and broader connector coverage that are useful when the warehouse integrates many non-HubSpot sources.
Market adoption signals:
- HubSpot Marketplace shows more installs for the Data Share listing than for the ingestion app, but the marketplace review counts are small and should not be over-interpreted.