Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ABPWW vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS vs CRL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
ABPWW vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS vs CRL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Medical - Diagnostics & Research |
| Market Cap | $627.00 | $186M | $5.53B | $2.50B | $8.98B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $183K | $150M | $0.00 | $236M | $4.03B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-14M | $-75M | $-464M | $-369M | $-185M |
| Gross Margin | -55.2% | — | — | 90.7% | 24.9% |
| Operating Margin | -79.5% | -48.7% | — | -168.6% | 11.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | — | 16.0x |
| Total Debt | $3M | $37M | $98K | $99M | $3.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $3M | $57M | $714M | $222M | $214M |
ABPWW vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS vs CRL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 24 | Apr 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abpro Holdings Inc (ABPWW) | 100 | 4.5 | -95.5% |
| MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) | 100 | 51.0 | -49.0% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 92.2 | -7.8% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 136.3 | +36.3% |
| Charles River Labor… (CRL) | 100 | 105.7 | +5.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ABPWW vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS vs CRL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ABPWW is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 50.0%, EPS growth 38.4%, 3Y rev CAGR -27.5%
- 50.0% revenue growth vs IMVT's -21.3%
Among these 5 stocks, MGNX doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
IMVT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- beta 1.37
- 173.6% 10Y total return vs CRL's 119.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.37, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- Beta 1.37, current ratio 11.16x
RCUS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +209.6% vs ABPWW's -90.0%
CRL is the clearest fit if your priority is efficiency.
- -2.5% ROA vs ABPWW's -8.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 50.0% revenue growth vs IMVT's -21.3% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.2% margin vs ABPWW's -76.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.37 vs RCUS's 1.95, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +209.6% vs ABPWW's -90.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -2.5% ROA vs ABPWW's -8.2% |
ABPWW vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS vs CRL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
ABPWW vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS vs CRL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CRL leads in 3 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 1 • ABPWW leads 0 • MGNX leads 0 • RCUS leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CRL leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CRL and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $4.0B and $0 in trailing revenue. CRL is the more profitable business, keeping -4.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ABPWW's -76.7%. On growth, MGNX holds the edge at +132.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $183,000 | $150M | $0 | $236M | $4.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$11M | -$73M | -$487M | -$391M | $757M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$14M | -$75M | -$464M | -$369M | -$185M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$14M | -$83M | -$423M | -$489M | $391M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -55.2% | — | — | +90.7% | +24.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -79.5% | -48.7% | — | -168.6% | +11.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -76.7% | -49.9% | — | -156.4% | -4.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -74.5% | -55.5% | — | -2.1% | +9.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +132.5% | — | -39.3% | +1.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +41.2% | +8.0% | +19.7% | +10.5% | -160.0% |
Valuation Metrics
CRL leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $627 | $186M | $5.5B | $2.5B | $9.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $478,627 | $166M | $4.8B | $2.4B | $11.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.00x | -2.49x | -9.97x | -7.54x | -62.52x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | 16.00x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — | 12.98x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.00x | 1.25x | — | 10.11x | 2.24x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 3.34x | 5.83x | 4.22x | 2.81x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | 17.31x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CRL leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CRL delivers a -5.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-6 in annual profit, vs $-120 for MGNX. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CRL's 0.95x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CRL scores 4/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -120.2% | -47.1% | -69.0% | -5.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -8.2% | -29.9% | -44.1% | -35.3% | -2.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -18.8% | — | -64.1% | +6.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | -34.7% | -66.1% | -42.1% | +8.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.66x | 0.00x | 0.16x | 0.95x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $478,000 | -$20M | -$714M | -$123M | $2.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3M | $57M | $714M | $222M | $214M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $37M | $98,000 | $99M | $3.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.64x | — | — | -13.38x | 6.38x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IMVT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IMVT five years ago would be worth $16,241 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $500 for ABPWW. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +209.6% total return vs ABPWW's -90.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMVT at 12.1% vs ABPWW's -63.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -86.5% | +82.6% | +5.1% | +6.5% | -10.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -90.0% | +97.3% | +96.1% | +209.6% | +32.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.0% | -59.4% | +40.9% | +24.9% | -4.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.0% | -90.8% | +62.4% | -18.6% | -46.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.0% | -84.4% | +173.6% | +45.9% | +119.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -63.2% | -25.9% | +12.1% | +7.7% | -1.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ABPWW and IMVT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABPWW is the less volatile stock with a -1.33 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RCUS's 1.95 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMVT currently trades 90.5% from its 52-week high vs ABPWW's 2.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -1.37x | 1.76x | 1.36x | 1.84x | 1.44x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.07 | $3.88 | $30.09 | $28.72 | $228.88 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.00 | $1.19 | $13.36 | $7.06 | $131.30 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +2.7% | +75.8% | +90.5% | +86.3% | +79.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 43.5 | 45.1 | 60.2 | 60.5 | 57.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2K | 1.1M | 1.4M | 1.2M | 806K |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MGNX as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy", CRL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 104.1% upside for MGNX (target: $6) vs 13.5% for CRL (target: $206).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $6.00 | $45.50 | $30.00 | $206.43 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 22 | 23 | 18 | 36 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +4.0% |
CRL leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). IMVT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
ABPWW vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS vs CRL: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Abpro Holdings Inc (ABPWW) is the stronger pick with 50.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 3% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS). Analysts rate MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 — ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +62. 4%, compared to -95. 0% for Abpro Holdings Inc (ABPWW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +190. 9% versus ABPWW's -95. 0%. 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 — ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Abpro Holdings Inc (ABPWW) is the lower-risk stock at -1.
37β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 84β — meaning RCUS is approximately -234% more volatile than ABPWW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 95% for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Abpro Holdings Inc (ABPWW) is pulling ahead at 50.
0% versus -4. 3% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Abpro Holdings Inc grew EPS 38. 4% year-over-year, compared to -1555. 0% for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RCUS leads at 30. 2% 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 — ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL?
Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -39. 5% for Abpro Holdings Inc — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CRL leads at 12. 6% versus -54. 2% for ABPWW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ABPWW 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.
06Is ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MGNX: 104.
1% to $6. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL?
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.
08Is ABPWW or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS or CRL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Abpro Holdings Inc (ABPWW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -1.
37)). MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) carries a higher beta of 1. 76 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABPWW: -95. 0%, MGNX: -84. 0%), 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.
09What are the main differences between ABPWW and MGNX and IMVT and RCUS and CRL?
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: ABPWW is a small-cap high-growth stock; MGNX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RCUS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CRL 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.