Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
ADCT vs MGNX vs RCUS vs ABBV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - General
ADCT vs MGNX vs RCUS vs ABBV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $478M | $186M | $2.50B | $358.42B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $79M | $150M | $236M | $61.16B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-137M | $-75M | $-369M | $4.23B |
| Gross Margin | 90.7% | — | 90.7% | 70.2% |
| Operating Margin | -149.6% | -48.7% | -168.6% | 26.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | 14.3x |
| Total Debt | $439M | $37M | $99M | $69.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $261M | $57M | $222M | $5.23B |
ADCT vs MGNX vs RCUS vs ABBV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADC Therapeutics S.… (ADCT) | 100 | 10.2 | -89.8% |
| MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) | 100 | 15.3 | -84.7% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 79.1 | -20.9% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 218.7 | +118.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ADCT vs MGNX vs RCUS vs ABBV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ADCT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and defensive is your priority.
- Rev growth 14.9%, EPS growth 30.9%, 3Y rev CAGR -27.1%
- Beta 1.89, current ratio 4.37x
- 14.9% revenue growth vs RCUS's -4.3%
MGNX is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.93, Low D/E 66.1%, current ratio 5.10x
RCUS is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +209.6% vs ABBV's +11.3%
ABBV carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 0.34, yield 3.2%
- 295.5% 10Y total return vs RCUS's 45.9%
- 6.9% margin vs ADCT's -173.0%
- Beta 0.34 vs RCUS's 1.95
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.9% revenue growth vs RCUS's -4.3% | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.9% margin vs ADCT's -173.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.34 vs RCUS's 1.95 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield; 13-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +209.6% vs ABBV's +11.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.1% ROA vs ADCT's -44.7% |
ADCT vs MGNX vs RCUS vs ABBV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
ADCT vs MGNX vs RCUS vs ABBV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ABBV leads in 2 of 6 categories
MGNX leads 1 • ADCT leads 0 • RCUS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV is the larger business by revenue, generating $61.2B annually — 772.5x ADCT's $79M. ABBV is the more profitable business, keeping 6.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ADCT's -173.0%. On growth, MGNX holds the edge at +132.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $79M | $150M | $236M | $61.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$117M | -$73M | -$391M | $24.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$137M | -$75M | -$369M | $4.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$115M | -$83M | -$489M | $18.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +90.7% | — | +90.7% | +70.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -149.6% | -48.7% | -168.6% | +26.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -173.0% | -49.9% | -156.4% | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -144.7% | -55.5% | -2.1% | +30.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.5% | +132.5% | -39.3% | +10.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +41.7% | +8.0% | +10.5% | +57.4% |
Valuation Metrics
MGNX leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $478M | $186M | $2.5B | $358.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $656M | $166M | $2.4B | $422.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.36x | -2.49x | -7.54x | 85.50x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | 14.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | 14.96x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 5.88x | 1.25x | 10.11x | 5.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 3.34x | 4.22x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 20.12x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV delivers a 62.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $62 in annual profit, vs $-120 for MGNX. RCUS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.16x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MGNX's 0.66x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ABBV scores 6/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -120.2% | -69.0% | +62.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -44.7% | -29.9% | -35.3% | +3.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -18.8% | -64.1% | +23.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -43.8% | -34.7% | -42.1% | +21.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.66x | 0.16x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $178M | -$20M | -$123M | $63.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $261M | $57M | $222M | $5.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $439M | $37M | $99M | $69.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -1.72x | — | -13.38x | 3.28x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — ADCT and ABBV each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ABBV five years ago would be worth $20,131 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $924 for MGNX. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +209.6% total return vs ABBV's +11.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ADCT at 21.0% vs MGNX's -25.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +6.8% | +82.6% | +6.5% | -10.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +196.1% | +97.3% | +209.6% | +11.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +77.4% | -59.4% | +24.9% | +50.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.1% | -90.8% | -18.6% | +101.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -87.3% | -84.4% | +45.9% | +295.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +21.0% | -25.9% | +7.7% | +14.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — RCUS and ABBV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABBV is the less volatile stock with a 0.34 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. RCUS currently trades 86.3% from its 52-week high vs ADCT's 75.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.89x | 1.93x | 1.95x | 0.34x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.97 | $3.88 | $28.72 | $244.81 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.23 | $1.19 | $7.06 | $176.57 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.7% | +75.8% | +86.3% | +82.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.0 | 45.1 | 60.5 | 46.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 946K | 1.1M | 1.2M | 5.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ADCT as "Buy", MGNX as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 104.1% upside for MGNX (target: $6) vs 21.0% for RCUS (target: $30). ABBV is the only dividend payer here at 3.24% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.50 | $6.00 | $30.00 | $256.64 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 22 | 18 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +3.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $6.57 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.3% |
ABBV leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). MGNX leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
ADCT vs MGNX vs RCUS vs ABBV: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, ADC Therapeutics S.
A. (ADCT) is the stronger pick with 14. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 3% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS). AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) offers the better valuation at 85. 5x trailing P/E (14. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate ADC Therapeutics S. A. (ADCT) a "Buy" — based on 12 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 — ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV?
Over the past 5 years, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) delivered a total return of +101. 3%, compared to -90. 8% for MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ABBV returned +295. 5% versus ADCT's -87. 3%. 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 — ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 34β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 95β — meaning RCUS is approximately 477% more volatile than ABBV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 66% for MacroGenics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), ADC Therapeutics S.
A. (ADCT) is pulling ahead at 14. 9% versus -4. 3% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: ADC Therapeutics S. A. grew EPS 30. 9% year-over-year, compared to -10. 3% for MacroGenics, 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 — ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV?
AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 9% net margin versus -175. 3% for ADC Therapeutics S. A. — meaning it keeps 6. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ABBV leads at 32. 8% versus -156. 3% for RCUS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RCUS leads at 96. 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 ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MGNX: 104.
1% to $6. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV?
In this comparison, ABBV (3.
2% yield) pays a dividend. ADCT, MGNX, RCUS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is ADCT or MGNX or RCUS or ABBV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 34), 3. 2% yield, +295. 5% 10Y return). MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) carries a higher beta of 1. 93 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABBV: +295. 5%, MGNX: -84. 4%), 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 ADCT and MGNX and RCUS and ABBV?
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: ADCT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MGNX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RCUS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ABBV is a large-cap income-oriented stock. ABBV pays a dividend while ADCT, MGNX, RCUS 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.
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.