NEO vs NTRA

For growth investors, Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is the stronger pick with 35. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 10. 1% for NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO). Analysts rate NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO) a "Buy" — based on 29 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.

Over the past 5 years, Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) delivered a total return of +104. 4%, compared to -74. 4% for NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +1731% versus NEO's +42. 1%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 24β versus NeoGenomics, Inc. 's 1. 37β — meaning NEO is approximately 10% more volatile than NTRA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Natera, Inc. (NTRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 56% for NeoGenomics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is pulling ahead at 35. 9% versus 10. 1% for NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Natera, Inc. grew EPS 0. 7% year-over-year, compared to -35. 5% for NeoGenomics, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NTRA leads at 41. 1% 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.

Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is the more profitable company, earning -9. 0% net margin versus -14. 9% for NeoGenomics, Inc. — meaning it keeps -9. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NEO leads at -9. 1% versus -13. 4% for NTRA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NTRA leads at 64. 8%, 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.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NEO: 70.

4% to $19. 00.

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.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 24), +1731% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NTRA: +1731%, NEO: +42. 1%), 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.

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: NEO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NTRA is a mid-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.