Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN vs JPM vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Biotechnology
Asset Management
Banks - Diversified
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN vs JPM vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Asset Management | Biotechnology | Asset Management | Banks - Diversified | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $48M | $226M | $6.90B | $192M | $896.00B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $61M | $0.00 | $75M | $280.33B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-22M | $-12M | $-506M | $28M | $57.05B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | — | 72.9% | — | 35.7% | 60.0% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | -35.9% | — | 26.0% | 25.9% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | — | 6.0x | — | 6.5x | 14.4x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $405K | $469M | $72K | $473M | $942.38B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $13M | $20M | $902M | $106M | $343.34B | $10.27B |
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN vs JPM vs KO — 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% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 142.7 | +42.7% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 114.0 | +14.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN vs JPM vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 6 stocks, ACTU doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
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 JPM's 2.2%
- 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2%
- Beta 0.65 vs ACTU's 2.21
IMVT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- 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
- Lower P/E (6.5x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.27 vs 2.26
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs IMVT's 237.9%
KO is the clearest fit if your priority is efficiency.
- 13.1% ROA vs ACTU's -180.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.5x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.27 vs 2.26 | |
| 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 KO's 2.5%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +110.9% vs ACTU's -76.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs ACTU's -180.9% |
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN vs JPM vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN vs JPM vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 6 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories
HRZN leads 1 • ACTU leads 0 • TPVG leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • JPM leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HRZN leads this category, winning 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $280.3B 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 | $280.3B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$22M | -$22M | -$532M | $19M | $81.4B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$22M | -$12M | -$506M | $28M | $57.0B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$20M | -$59M | -$407M | $67M | $100.9B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +72.9% | — | +35.7% | +60.0% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -35.9% | — | +26.0% | +25.9% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -19.5% | — | +37.4% | +20.4% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -97.1% | — | +89.6% | +36.0% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +25.0% | -2.3% | -14.1% | -29.6% | +16.0% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — TPVG and HRZN each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.2x trailing earnings, HRZN trades at a 85% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x 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 | $896.0B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $36M | $675M | $6.0B | $560M | $1.50T | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.91x | 4.57x | -12.14x | 4.15x | 16.00x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 5.96x | — | 6.50x | 14.40x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.50x | — | 0.17x | 0.90x | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 8.91x | — | — | 18.36x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.33x | — | 4.81x | 3.20x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 5.36x | 0.63x | 7.19x | 0.58x | 2.47x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 3.40x | 8.88x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 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 JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs IMVT's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -4.3% | -3.4% | -68.2% | +9.0% | +15.9% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -180.9% | -1.5% | -62.2% | +3.6% | +1.3% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +7.2% | — | -0.2% | +4.5% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -5.1% | +9.4% | -68.3% | -0.2% | +8.9% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 1.33x | 0.00x | 1.49x | 2.60x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$13M | $449M | -$902M | $368M | $599.0B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $13M | $20M | $902M | $106M | $343.3B | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $404,991 | $469M | $72,000 | $473M | $942.4B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -1073.65x | -1.02x | — | 0.60x | 0.74x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — IMVT and JPM each lead in 3 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 JPM at 33.6% 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% | -0.5% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -76.5% | -10.7% | +110.9% | -26.7% | +21.8% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | -22.4% | +55.0% | -31.5% | +138.2% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | -23.3% | +213.0% | -39.3% | +118.2% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | +85.3% | +237.9% | +43.1% | +465.8% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -38.3% | -8.1% | +15.7% | -11.8% | +33.6% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 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. KO currently trades 98.3% 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 | 0.94x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.25 | $7.50 | $36.27 | $8.46 | $337.25 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.60 | $4.48 | $14.32 | $3.80 | $262.71 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +21.8% | +74.3% | +92.7% | +51.5% | +95.1% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.0 | 49.9 | 57.9 | 56.9 | 59.1 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 178K | 298K | 1.9M | 918K | 7.0M | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — HRZN and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ACTU as "Buy", TPVG as "Hold", IMVT as "Buy", HRZN as "Hold", JPM as "Buy", KO as "Buy". 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 JPM's 1.86%.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $21.00 | $8.95 | $43.67 | $4.25 | $339.75 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 1 | 12 | 23 | 22 | 61 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +18.4% | — | +28.8% | +1.9% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | — | 1 | 15 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.02 | — | $1.25 | $5.95 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.9% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Risk & Volatility). HRZN leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 3 tied.
ACTU vs TPVG vs IMVT vs HRZN vs JPM vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN or JPM or KO 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 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). 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 or JPM or KO?
On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.
2x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. 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 or JPM or KO?
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: JPM returned +465. 8% 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 or JPM or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Actuate Therapeutics Inc's 2. 21β — meaning ACTU is approximately -1206% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ACTU or TPVG or IMVT or HRZN or JPM or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is pulling ahead at 36. 6% versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). 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 or JPM or KO?
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 or JPM or KO 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 25. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 19. 3x 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 or JPM or KO?
In this comparison, HRZN (28.
8% yield), TPVG (18. 4% yield), KO (2. 5% yield), JPM (1. 9% 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 or JPM or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). 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 (KO: +121. 1%, 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 and JPM and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (ACTU (Healthcare) and TPVG (Financial Services) and IMVT (Healthcare) and HRZN (Financial Services) and JPM (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), 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; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. TPVG, HRZN, JPM, KO 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.