Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
ALLO vs FATE vs CRSP vs NTLA
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
ALLO vs FATE vs CRSP vs NTLA — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $521M | $280M | $5.06B | $1.62B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $7M | $4M | $68M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-191M | $-136M | $-569M | $-413M |
| Gross Margin | — | — | -41.7% | -25.6% |
| Operating Margin | — | -22.2% | -134.1% | -6.5% |
| Total Debt | $75M | $78M | $395M | $93M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $52M | $47M | $355M | $155M |
ALLO vs FATE vs CRSP vs NTLA — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allogene Therapeuti… (ALLO) | 100 | 4.7 | -95.3% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 7.5 | -92.5% |
| CRISPR Therapeutics… (CRSP) | 100 | 81.2 | -18.8% |
| Intellia Therapeuti… (NTLA) | 100 | 78.3 | -21.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ALLO vs FATE vs CRSP vs NTLA
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ALLO lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
FATE is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +143.0% vs CRSP's +53.1%
CRSP carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- beta 1.93
- 272.0% 10Y total return vs NTLA's -42.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.93, Low D/E 20.5%, current ratio 13.32x
- Beta 1.93, current ratio 13.32x
NTLA is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 16.9%, EPS growth 27.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 9.1%
- 16.9% revenue growth vs ALLO's -100.0%
- -6.1% margin vs CRSP's -138.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.9% revenue growth vs ALLO's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | -6.1% margin vs CRSP's -138.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.93 vs ALLO's 2.58, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +143.0% vs CRSP's +53.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -24.5% ROA vs NTLA's -45.2%, ROIC -22.3% vs -44.0% |
ALLO vs FATE vs CRSP vs NTLA — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ALLO vs FATE vs CRSP vs NTLA — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CRSP leads in 2 of 6 categories
NTLA leads 1 • ALLO leads 0 • FATE leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NTLA leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NTLA and ALLO operate at a comparable scale, with $68M and $0 in trailing revenue. NTLA is the more profitable business, keeping -6.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CRSP's -138.6%. On growth, NTLA holds the edge at +78.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $7M | $4M | $68M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$209M | -$148M | -$535M | -$431M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$191M | -$136M | -$569M | -$413M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$150M | -$88M | -$401M | -$396M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | -41.7% | -25.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -22.2% | -134.1% | -6.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -20.5% | -138.6% | -6.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -13.2% | -97.8% | -5.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -26.4% | +68.6% | +78.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +39.3% | +38.6% | +19.0% | +34.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — FATE and CRSP and NTLA each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $521M | $280M | $5.1B | $1.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $544M | $312M | $5.1B | $1.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.61x | -2.11x | -8.10x | -3.60x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 42.18x | 1440.41x | 23.93x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.71x | 1.39x | 2.45x | 2.21x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CRSP leads this category, winning 4 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CRSP delivers a -30.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-31 in annual profit, vs $-66 for FATE. NTLA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.14x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FATE's 0.38x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NTLA scores 4/9 vs CRSP's 1/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -57.1% | -65.8% | -30.9% | -56.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -41.6% | -42.7% | -24.5% | -45.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -41.7% | -36.5% | -22.3% | -44.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -46.7% | -43.1% | -26.6% | -48.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.26x | 0.38x | 0.21x | 0.14x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $23M | $31M | $40M | -$62M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $52M | $47M | $355M | $155M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $75M | $78M | $395M | $93M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CRSP leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CRSP five years ago would be worth $4,867 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $318 for FATE. Over the past 12 months, FATE leads with a +143.0% total return vs CRSP's +53.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CRSP at -2.2% vs NTLA's -31.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +68.1% | +145.5% | -2.5% | +48.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +89.2% | +143.0% | +53.1% | +88.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -64.1% | -55.4% | -6.3% | -68.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -92.4% | -96.8% | -51.3% | -79.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -90.9% | +40.5% | +272.0% | -42.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -28.9% | -23.6% | -2.2% | -31.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FATE and CRSP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CRSP is the less volatile stock with a 1.93 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ALLO's 2.58 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FATE currently trades 98.6% from its 52-week high vs NTLA's 48.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.58x | 2.17x | 1.93x | 2.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.46 | $2.46 | $78.48 | $28.25 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.86 | $0.91 | $33.50 | $6.83 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +50.9% | +98.6% | +66.8% | +48.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 49.7 | 81.0 | 55.5 | 50.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 10.0M | 1.9M | 2.0M | 5.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ALLO as "Buy", FATE as "Buy", CRSP as "Buy", NTLA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1525.5% upside for FATE (target: $40) vs 20.2% for CRSP (target: $63).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $6.43 | $39.50 | $63.00 | $20.88 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 30 | 31 | 38 | 39 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CRSP leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). NTLA leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
ALLO vs FATE vs CRSP vs NTLA: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ALLO or FATE or CRSP or NTLA a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
(NTLA) is the stronger pick with 16. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (ALLO). Analysts rate Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (ALLO) a "Buy" — based on 30 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 — ALLO or FATE or CRSP or NTLA?
Over the past 5 years, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) delivered a total return of -51.
3%, compared to -96. 8% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CRSP returned +272. 0% versus ALLO's -90. 9%. 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 — ALLO or FATE or CRSP or NTLA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
93β versus Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. 's 2. 58β — meaning ALLO is approximately 34% more volatile than CRSP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. (NTLA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 14% versus 38% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — ALLO or FATE or CRSP or NTLA?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
(NTLA) is pulling ahead at 16. 9% versus -100. 0% for Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (ALLO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 34. 1% year-over-year, compared to -49. 1% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG. Over a 3-year CAGR, CRSP leads at 100. 4% 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 — ALLO or FATE or CRSP or NTLA?
Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.
(ALLO) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -165. 7% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ALLO leads at 0. 0% versus -161. 9% for CRSP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NTLA leads at 76. 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — ALLO or FATE or CRSP or NTLA?
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 ALLO or FATE or CRSP or NTLA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+272.
0% 10Y return). Allogene Therapeutics, Inc. (ALLO) carries a higher beta of 2. 58 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CRSP: +272. 0%, ALLO: -90. 9%), 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 ALLO and FATE and CRSP and NTLA?
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: ALLO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FATE is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CRSP is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NTLA is a small-cap high-growth 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.