Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
IBRX vs NKTR vs FATE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
IBRX vs NKTR vs FATE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $8.25B | $1.67B | $264M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $83M | $63M | $7M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-349M | $-121M | $-136M |
| Gross Margin | 94.8% | 86.9% | — |
| Operating Margin | -315.8% | -156.5% | -22.2% |
| Total Debt | $504M | $86M | $78M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $143M | $15M | $47M |
IBRX vs NKTR vs FATE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| ImmunityBio, Inc. (IBRX) | 100 | 124.3 | +24.3% |
| Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) | 100 | 26.1 | -73.9% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 7.1 | -92.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: IBRX vs NKTR vs FATE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
IBRX is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 22.7%, EPS growth 46.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 150.9%
- 4.7% 10Y total return vs FATE's 33.9%
- 22.7% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2%
NKTR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- beta 1.85
- Beta 1.85, current ratio 4.97x
- -192.9% margin vs FATE's -20.5%
FATE is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 2.17, Low D/E 37.6%, current ratio 5.79x
- -42.7% ROA vs IBRX's -93.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 22.7% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2% | |
| Quality / Margins | -192.9% margin vs FATE's -20.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.85 vs IBRX's 2.21 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 3 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +7.8% vs FATE's +139.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -42.7% ROA vs IBRX's -93.2% |
IBRX vs NKTR vs FATE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
IBRX vs NKTR vs FATE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FATE leads in 1 of 6 categories
NKTR leads 1 • IBRX leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — IBRX and NKTR each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IBRX is the larger business by revenue, generating $83M annually — 12.4x FATE's $7M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -192.9% (NKTR) to -20.5% (FATE). On growth, IBRX holds the edge at +4.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $83M | $63M | $7M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$245M | -$97M | -$148M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$349M | -$121M | -$136M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$324M | -$190M | -$88M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +94.8% | +86.9% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.2% | -156.5% | -22.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -4.2% | -192.9% | -20.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -3.9% | -3.0% | -13.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +4.3% | -51.1% | -26.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +40.8% | +29.7% | +38.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — IBRX and NKTR and FATE each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $8.3B | $1.7B | $264M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $8.6B | $1.7B | $295M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -13.52x | -8.75x | -1.99x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 559.78x | 30.28x | 39.75x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 15.98x | 1.31x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
FATE leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FATE delivers a -65.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-66 in annual profit, vs $-4 for NKTR. FATE carries lower financial leverage with a 0.38x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NKTR's 0.95x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IBRX scores 4/9 vs FATE's 2/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -3.6% | -65.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -93.2% | -45.2% | -42.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -75.2% | -36.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -88.9% | -59.7% | -43.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.95x | 0.38x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $361M | $71M | $31M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $143M | $15M | $47M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $504M | $86M | $78M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2.48x | -3.30x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NKTR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IBRX five years ago would be worth $5,234 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $299 for FATE. Over the past 12 months, NKTR leads with a +783.6% total return vs FATE's +139.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NKTR at 94.6% vs FATE's -25.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +314.9% | +96.0% | +131.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +316.9% | +783.6% | +139.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +30.7% | +636.7% | -58.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -47.7% | -69.4% | -97.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +4.7% | -57.6% | +33.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +9.3% | +94.6% | -25.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NKTR and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NKTR is the less volatile stock with a 1.85 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than IBRX's 2.21 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FATE currently trades 95.0% from its 52-week high vs IBRX's 67.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.21x | 1.85x | 2.17x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $12.43 | $109.00 | $2.41 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.83 | $7.99 | $0.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +67.4% | +78.1% | +95.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.8 | 52.0 | 85.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 21.7M | 995K | 1.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: IBRX as "Buy", NKTR as "Buy", FATE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1624.9% upside for FATE (target: $40) vs 56.1% for NKTR (target: $133).
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $13.50 | $132.83 | $39.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 5 | 33 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
FATE leads in 1 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency). NKTR leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
IBRX vs NKTR vs FATE: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is IBRX or NKTR or FATE a better buy right now?
For growth investors, ImmunityBio, Inc.
(IBRX) is the stronger pick with 22. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Analysts rate ImmunityBio, Inc. (IBRX) a "Buy" — based on 5 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 is the better long-term investment — IBRX or NKTR or FATE?
Over the past 5 years, ImmunityBio, Inc.
(IBRX) delivered a total return of -47. 7%, compared to -97. 0% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FATE returned +33. 9% versus NKTR's -57. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — IBRX or NKTR or FATE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
85β versus ImmunityBio, Inc. 's 2. 21β — meaning IBRX is approximately 20% more volatile than NKTR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 95% for Nektar Therapeutics — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — IBRX or NKTR or FATE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), ImmunityBio, Inc.
(IBRX) is pulling ahead at 22. 7% versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: ImmunityBio, Inc. grew EPS 46. 1% year-over-year, compared to -12. 1% for Nektar Therapeutics. Over a 3-year CAGR, IBRX leads at 150. 9% 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.
05Which has better profit margins — IBRX or NKTR or FATE?
Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) is the more profitable company, earning -297.
1% net margin versus -28. 0% for ImmunityBio, Inc. — meaning it keeps -297. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NKTR leads at -253. 7% versus -23. 3% for IBRX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IBRX leads at 100. 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — IBRX or NKTR or FATE?
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.
07Is IBRX or NKTR or FATE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding.
ImmunityBio, Inc. (IBRX) carries a higher beta of 2. 21 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NKTR: -57. 6%, IBRX: +4. 7%), 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.
08What are the main differences between IBRX and NKTR and FATE?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: IBRX is a small-cap high-growth stock; NKTR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FATE is a small-cap quality compounder 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.
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.