NTRA vs EXAS vs ILMN

For growth investors, Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is the stronger pick with 35. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) offers the better valuation at 25. 5x trailing P/E (26. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Natera, Inc. (NTRA) a "Buy" — based on 27 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.

On forward P/E, Illumina, Inc.

is actually cheaper at 26. 8x.

Over the past 5 years, Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) delivered a total return of +115. 9%, compared to -62. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +20. 9% versus ILMN's +0. 7%. 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), Exact Sciences Corporation (EXAS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

12β versus Natera, Inc. 's 1. 26β — meaning NTRA is approximately 943% more volatile than EXAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Natera, Inc. (NTRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 105% for Exact Sciences Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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

(NTRA) is pulling ahead at 35. 9% versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Illumina, Inc. grew EPS 170. 9% year-over-year, compared to 0. 7% for Natera, 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.

Illumina, Inc.

(ILMN) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 6% net margin versus -9. 0% for Natera, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ILMN leads at 19. 9% versus -13. 4% for NTRA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EXAS leads at 69. 7%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Illumina, Inc.

(ILMN) trades at 26. 8x forward P/E versus 582. 8x for Exact Sciences Corporation — 556. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NTRA: 19. 4% to $262. 50.

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, Exact Sciences Corporation (EXAS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

12), +1669% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (EXAS: +1669%, NTRA: +20. 9%), 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: NTRA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; EXAS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ILMN is a mid-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.