Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
ABPWW vs XNCR vs IMVT vs RCUS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
ABPWW vs XNCR vs IMVT vs RCUS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $627.00 | $903M | $5.53B | $2.50B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $183K | $93M | $0.00 | $236M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-14M | $-172M | $-464M | $-369M |
| Gross Margin | -55.2% | 94.4% | — | 90.7% |
| Operating Margin | -79.5% | -144.7% | — | -168.6% |
| Total Debt | $3M | $188M | $98K | $99M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $3M | $54M | $714M | $222M |
ABPWW vs XNCR vs IMVT vs RCUS — 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% |
| Xencor, Inc. (XNCR) | 100 | 47.2 | -52.8% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 92.2 | -7.8% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 136.3 | +36.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ABPWW vs XNCR vs IMVT vs RCUS
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%
XNCR is the clearest fit if your priority is efficiency.
- -20.5% ROA vs ABPWW's -8.2%
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 RCUS's 45.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.37, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- Beta 1.37, current ratio 11.16x
RCUS is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +209.6% vs ABPWW's -90.0%
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 XNCR's 1.99, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +209.6% vs ABPWW's -90.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -20.5% ROA vs ABPWW's -8.2% |
ABPWW vs XNCR vs IMVT vs RCUS — 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 XNCR vs IMVT vs RCUS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
XNCR leads in 2 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 1 • ABPWW leads 0 • RCUS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
XNCR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RCUS and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $236M and $0 in trailing revenue. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -156.4% (RCUS) to -76.7% (ABPWW). On growth, RCUS holds the edge at -39.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $183,000 | $93M | $0 | $236M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$11M | -$127M | -$487M | -$391M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$14M | -$172M | -$464M | -$369M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$14M | -$189M | -$423M | -$489M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -55.2% | +94.4% | — | +90.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -79.5% | -144.7% | — | -168.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -76.7% | -185.7% | — | -156.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -74.5% | -2.0% | — | -2.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -100.0% | — | -39.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +41.2% | -159.1% | +19.7% | +10.5% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — ABPWW and XNCR and IMVT each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $627 | $903M | $5.5B | $2.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $478,627 | $1.0B | $4.8B | $2.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.00x | -9.93x | -9.97x | -7.54x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.00x | 7.19x | — | 10.11x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 1.44x | 5.83x | 4.22x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
XNCR leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
XNCR delivers a -23.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-24 in annual profit, vs $-69 for RCUS. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to XNCR's 0.30x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ABPWW scores 3/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -23.7% | -47.1% | -69.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -8.2% | -20.5% | -44.1% | -35.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -16.3% | — | -64.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | -21.6% | -66.1% | -42.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.30x | 0.00x | 0.16x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $478,000 | $134M | -$714M | -$123M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3M | $54M | $714M | $222M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $188M | $98,000 | $99M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.64x | -0.98x | — | -13.38x |
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% | -17.5% | +5.1% | +6.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -90.0% | +54.1% | +96.1% | +209.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.0% | -55.0% | +40.9% | +24.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.0% | -68.9% | +62.4% | -18.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.0% | +4.5% | +173.6% | +45.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -63.2% | -23.4% | +12.1% | +7.7% |
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 XNCR's 1.99 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 | -1.33x | 1.99x | 1.37x | 1.95x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.07 | $18.69 | $30.09 | $28.72 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.00 | $6.92 | $13.36 | $7.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +2.7% | +65.9% | +90.5% | +86.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 43.5 | 54.7 | 60.2 | 60.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2K | 865K | 1.4M | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: XNCR as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 162.6% upside for XNCR (target: $32) vs 21.0% for RCUS (target: $30).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $32.33 | $45.50 | $30.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 27 | 23 | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
XNCR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). IMVT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
ABPWW vs XNCR vs IMVT vs RCUS: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ABPWW or XNCR or IMVT or RCUS 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 Xencor, Inc. (XNCR) 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.
02Which is the better long-term investment — ABPWW or XNCR or IMVT or RCUS?
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 +173. 6% 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 XNCR or IMVT or RCUS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Abpro Holdings Inc (ABPWW) is the lower-risk stock at -1.
33β versus Xencor, Inc. 's 1. 99β — meaning XNCR is approximately -250% 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 30% for Xencor, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — ABPWW or XNCR or IMVT or RCUS?
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: Xencor, Inc. grew EPS 65. 4% year-over-year, compared to -45. 2% for Immunovant, 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 XNCR or IMVT or RCUS?
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: IMVT leads at 0. 0% 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — ABPWW or XNCR or IMVT or RCUS?
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 ABPWW or XNCR or IMVT or RCUS 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.
33)). Xencor, Inc. (XNCR) carries a higher beta of 1. 99 — 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%, XNCR: +4. 5%), 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 ABPWW and XNCR and IMVT and RCUS?
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; XNCR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RCUS 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.