Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Biotechnology
Asset Management
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Asset Management | Biotechnology | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $48M | $226M | $6.90B | $192M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $61M | $0.00 | $75M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-22M | $-12M | $-506M | $28M |
| Gross Margin | — | 72.9% | — | 35.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | -35.9% | — | 26.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | 6.0x | — | 6.5x |
| Total Debt | $405K | $469M | $72K | $473M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $13M | $20M | $902M | $106M |
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Aug 24 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actuate Therapeutic… (ACTU) | 100 | 25.1 | -74.9% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 74.0 | -26.0% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 108.8 | +8.8% |
| Horizon Technology … (HRZN) | 100 | 39.5 | -60.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ACTU lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
TPVG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and bank quality is your priority.
- Rev growth 36.6%, EPS growth 48.8%
- NIM 7.4% vs HRZN's 7.1%
- 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2%
- Beta 0.65 vs ACTU's 2.21
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 237.9% 10Y total return vs TPVG's 85.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.66, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 9.09x
- +110.9% vs ACTU's -76.5%
HRZN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.85, yield 28.8%
- PEG 0.27 vs TPVG's 5.88
- Beta 0.85, yield 28.8%, current ratio 1.24x
- Better valuation composite
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 37.4% margin vs TPVG's -19.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.65 vs ACTU's 2.21 | |
| Dividends | 28.8% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs TPVG's 18.4%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +110.9% vs ACTU's -76.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.6% ROA vs ACTU's -180.9% |
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HRZN leads in 3 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 1 • ACTU leads 0 • TPVG leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HRZN leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HRZN and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $75M and $0 in trailing revenue. HRZN is the more profitable business, keeping 37.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TPVG's -19.5%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $61M | $0 | $75M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$22M | -$22M | -$532M | $19M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$22M | -$12M | -$506M | $28M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$20M | -$59M | -$407M | $67M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +72.9% | — | +35.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -35.9% | — | +26.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -19.5% | — | +37.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -97.1% | — | +89.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +25.0% | -2.3% | -14.1% | -29.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — TPVG and HRZN each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.2x trailing earnings, HRZN trades at a 9% valuation discount to TPVG's 4.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HRZN offers better value at 0.17x vs TPVG's 4.50x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $48M | $226M | $6.9B | $192M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $36M | $675M | $6.0B | $560M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.91x | 4.57x | -12.14x | 4.15x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 5.96x | — | 6.50x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.50x | — | 0.17x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 8.91x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.33x | — | 4.81x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 5.36x | 0.63x | 7.19x | 0.58x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 3.40x |
Profitability & Efficiency
HRZN leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HRZN delivers a 9.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $-4 for ACTU. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HRZN's 1.49x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), HRZN scores 5/9 vs IMVT's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -4.3% | -3.4% | -68.2% | +9.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -180.9% | -1.5% | -62.2% | +3.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +7.2% | — | -0.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -5.1% | +9.4% | -68.3% | -0.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 1.33x | 0.00x | 1.49x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$13M | $449M | -$902M | $368M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $13M | $20M | $902M | $106M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $404,991 | $469M | $72,000 | $473M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -1073.65x | -1.02x | — | 0.60x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IMVT leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IMVT five years ago would be worth $31,304 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,346 for ACTU. Over the past 12 months, IMVT leads with a +110.9% total return vs ACTU's -76.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMVT at 15.7% vs ACTU's -38.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -66.5% | -12.7% | +29.8% | -28.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -76.5% | -10.7% | +110.9% | -26.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | -22.4% | +55.0% | -31.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | -23.3% | +213.0% | -39.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | +85.3% | +237.9% | +43.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -38.3% | -8.1% | +15.7% | -11.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TPVG and IMVT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TPVG is the less volatile stock with a 0.65 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ACTU's 2.21 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMVT currently trades 92.7% from its 52-week high vs ACTU's 21.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.21x | 0.65x | 1.66x | 0.85x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.25 | $7.50 | $36.27 | $8.46 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.60 | $4.48 | $14.32 | $3.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +21.8% | +74.3% | +92.7% | +51.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.0 | 49.9 | 57.9 | 56.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 178K | 298K | 1.9M | 918K |
Analyst Outlook
HRZN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ACTU as "Buy", TPVG as "Hold", IMVT as "Buy", HRZN as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 939.6% upside for ACTU (target: $21) vs -2.5% for HRZN (target: $4). For income investors, HRZN offers the higher dividend yield at 28.76% vs TPVG's 18.40%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $21.00 | $8.95 | $43.67 | $4.25 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 1 | 12 | 23 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +18.4% | — | +28.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | — | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.02 | — | $1.25 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
HRZN leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). IMVT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the stronger pick with 36. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 17. 9% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN). Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) offers the better valuation at 4. 2x trailing P/E (6. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Actuate Therapeutics Inc (ACTU) a "Buy" — based on 1 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 has the better valuation — ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN?
On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.
2x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. at 4. 6x. On forward P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. is actually cheaper at 6. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation wins at 0. 27x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 5. 88x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +213. 0%, compared to -76. 5% for Actuate Therapeutics Inc (ACTU). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +237. 9% versus ACTU's -76. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 65β versus Actuate Therapeutics Inc's 2. 21β — meaning ACTU is approximately 242% more volatile than TPVG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 149% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is pulling ahead at 36. 6% versus 17. 9% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation grew EPS 756. 3% year-over-year, compared to -1. 5% for Immunovant, Inc.. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN?
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the more profitable company, earning 50. 6% net margin versus -6. 6% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation — meaning it keeps 50. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TPVG leads at 77. 9% versus -4. 0% for HRZN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TPVG leads at 83. 5%, 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.
07Is ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 27x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 5. 88x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) trades at 6. 0x forward P/E versus 6. 5x for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation — 0. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ACTU: 939. 6% to $21. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN?
In this comparison, HRZN (28.
8% yield), TPVG (18. 4% yield) pay a dividend. ACTU, IMVT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 65), 18. 4% yield). Actuate Therapeutics Inc (ACTU) 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 (TPVG: +85. 3%, ACTU: -76. 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.
10What are the main differences between ACTU and TPVG and IMVT and HRZN?
These companies operate in different sectors (ACTU (Healthcare) and TPVG (Financial Services) and IMVT (Healthcare) and HRZN (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: ACTU is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HRZN is a small-cap high-growth stock. TPVG, HRZN pay a dividend while ACTU, IMVT do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.