Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
ASBPW vs HYFM vs GRWG vs IIPR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Agricultural - Machinery
Specialty Retail
REIT - Industrial
ASBPW vs HYFM vs GRWG vs IIPR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Agricultural - Machinery | Specialty Retail | REIT - Industrial |
| Market Cap | $125K | $5M | $85M | $1.62B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2K | $146M | $162M | $263M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-32M | $-65M | $-24M | $120M |
| Gross Margin | 45.5% | 10.2% | 26.8% | 60.3% |
| Operating Margin | -10314.0% | -35.8% | -15.7% | 46.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | 13.2x |
| Total Debt | $1M | $170M | $29M | $394M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4K | $26M | $30M | $48M |
ASBPW vs HYFM vs GRWG vs IIPR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Feb 25 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aspire Biopharma Ho… (ASBPW) | 100 | 25.3 | -74.7% |
| Hydrofarm Holdings … (HYFM) | 100 | 21.0 | -79.0% |
| GrowGeneration Corp. (GRWG) | 100 | 124.6 | +24.6% |
| Innovative Industri… (IIPR) | 100 | 78.7 | -21.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ASBPW vs HYFM vs GRWG vs IIPR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ASBPW lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
HYFM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.91, Low D/E 75.8%, current ratio 2.72x
- Beta 0.91, current ratio 2.72x
- Beta 0.91 vs ASBPW's 3.15
GRWG is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +25.7% vs HYFM's -75.4%
IIPR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 9 yrs, beta 0.92, yield 13.5%
- Rev growth -13.8%, EPS growth -28.8%, 3Y rev CAGR -1.3%
- 436.4% 10Y total return vs GRWG's -75.7%
- -13.8% FFO/revenue growth vs ASBPW's -25.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -13.8% FFO/revenue growth vs ASBPW's -25.4% | |
| Quality / Margins | 45.6% margin vs ASBPW's -16K% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.91 vs ASBPW's 3.15 | |
| Dividends | 13.5% yield; 9-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +25.7% vs HYFM's -75.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.1% ROA vs ASBPW's -13.2% |
ASBPW vs HYFM vs GRWG vs IIPR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
ASBPW vs HYFM vs GRWG vs IIPR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IIPR leads in 4 of 6 categories
HYFM leads 1 • ASBPW leads 0 • GRWG leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IIPR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IIPR is the larger business by revenue, generating $263M annually — 135615.1x ASBPW's $1,941. IIPR is the more profitable business, keeping 45.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ASBPW's -16351.8%. On growth, GRWG holds the edge at +1.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1,941 | $146M | $162M | $263M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$28M | -$23M | -$14M | $197M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$32M | -$65M | -$24M | $120M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$4M | -$8M | -$10M | $144M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +45.5% | +10.2% | +26.8% | +60.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -10314.0% | -35.8% | -15.7% | +46.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -16351.8% | -44.5% | -14.9% | +45.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1811.5% | -5.7% | -6.2% | +54.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -33.3% | +1.0% | -3.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +46.0% | -22.7% | +69.2% | -1.0% |
Valuation Metrics
HYFM leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $125,312 | $5M | $85M | $1.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1M | $148M | $84M | $2.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.01x | -0.07x | -3.55x | 14.40x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | 13.17x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 3.85x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | 9.91x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 0.03x | 0.53x | 6.08x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.02x | 0.87x | 0.87x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 9.26x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IIPR leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IIPR delivers a 6.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $6 in annual profit, vs $-32 for HYFM. IIPR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.21x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HYFM's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GRWG scores 6/9 vs HYFM's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -32.3% | -22.9% | +6.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -13.2% | -16.3% | -15.2% | +5.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -9.6% | -16.9% | +4.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | -12.1% | -18.8% | +5.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.76x | 0.30x | 0.21x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1M | $143M | -$929,000 | $346M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3,633 | $26M | $30M | $48M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1M | $170M | $29M | $394M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.51x | -3.77x | — | 6.67x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IIPR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IIPR five years ago would be worth $4,999 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $16 for HYFM. Over the past 12 months, GRWG leads with a +25.7% total return vs HYFM's -75.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IIPR at 4.5% vs HYFM's -56.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -18.3% | -35.0% | -7.8% | +18.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -66.2% | -75.4% | +25.7% | +20.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -81.9% | -91.9% | -62.0% | +14.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -81.9% | -99.8% | -96.7% | -50.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -81.9% | -99.8% | -75.7% | +436.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -43.4% | -56.8% | -27.6% | +4.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — HYFM and IIPR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HYFM is the less volatile stock with a 0.91 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ASBPW's 3.15 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IIPR currently trades 92.2% from its 52-week high vs ASBPW's 16.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.15x | 0.91x | 1.27x | 0.92x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.09 | $4.78 | $2.40 | $61.40 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.01 | $0.81 | $0.87 | $44.58 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +16.9% | +21.8% | +59.2% | +92.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 52.4 | 54.8 | 63.2 | 59.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 23K | 41K | 476K | 303K |
Analyst Outlook
IIPR leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
IIPR is the only dividend payer here at 13.46% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | — | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | — | $44.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | — | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +13.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | — | 9 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $7.62 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.2% |
IIPR leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). HYFM leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
ASBPW vs HYFM vs GRWG vs IIPR: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ASBPW or HYFM or GRWG or IIPR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the stronger pick with -13. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) offers the better valuation at 14. 4x trailing P/E (13. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) a "Hold" — based on 11 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 — ASBPW or HYFM or GRWG or IIPR?
Over the past 5 years, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) delivered a total return of -50. 0%, compared to -99. 8% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IIPR returned +436. 4% versus HYFM's -99. 8%. 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 — ASBPW or HYFM or GRWG or IIPR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc.
(HYFM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 91β versus Aspire Biopharma Holdings, Inc. 's 3. 15β — meaning ASBPW is approximately 244% more volatile than HYFM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 21% versus 76% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — ASBPW or HYFM or GRWG or IIPR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is pulling ahead at -13. 8% versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GrowGeneration Corp. grew EPS 51. 2% year-over-year, compared to -381. 5% for Aspire Biopharma Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IIPR leads at -1. 3% 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 — ASBPW or HYFM or GRWG or IIPR?
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the more profitable company, earning 43. 0% net margin versus -16351. 8% for Aspire Biopharma Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 43. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IIPR leads at 46. 7% versus -10314. 0% for ASBPW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IIPR leads at 88. 7%, 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 — ASBPW or HYFM or GRWG or IIPR?
In this comparison, IIPR (13.
5% yield) pays a dividend. ASBPW, HYFM, GRWG do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is ASBPW or HYFM or GRWG or IIPR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 92), 13. 5% yield, +436. 4% 10Y return). Aspire Biopharma Holdings, Inc. (ASBPW) carries a higher beta of 3. 15 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IIPR: +436. 4%, ASBPW: -81. 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 ASBPW and HYFM and GRWG and IIPR?
These companies operate in different sectors (ASBPW (Healthcare) and HYFM (Industrials) and GRWG (Consumer Cyclical) and IIPR (Real Estate)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: ASBPW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HYFM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GRWG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IIPR is a small-cap deep-value stock. IIPR pays a dividend while ASBPW, HYFM, GRWG 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.