AURA
Aura Biosciences, Inc.
Biotechnology
Market Cap$412M
5Y Perf.-56.7%
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisAURA
REPL
IMVT
FATE
Try popular comparisons:
Stock Comparison
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
REPL
Replimune Group, Inc.
Biotechnology
Market Cap$733M
5Y Perf.-69.9%
IMVT
Immunovant, Inc.
Biotechnology
Market Cap$6.90B
5Y Perf.+318.2%
FATE
Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
Biotechnology
Market Cap$240M
5Y Perf.-96.2%
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot |  AURA |  REPL |  IMVT |  FATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $412M | $733M | $6.90B | $240M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | — | $0.00 | $6M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-112M | $-315M | $-506M | $-130M |
| Gross Margin | — | — | — | 53.8% |
| Operating Margin | — | — | — | -22.1% |
| Total Debt | $17M | $76M | $72K | $78M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $60M | $111M | $902M | $47M |
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
AURA
REPL
IMVT
FATE
| Stock | Oct 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aura Biosciences, I… (AURA) | 100 | 43.3 | -56.7% |
| Replimune Group, In… (REPL) | 100 | 30.1 | -69.9% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 418.2 | +318.2% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 3.8 | -96.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Bottom line: AURA leads in 2 of 6 categories, making it the strongest pick for growth and revenue expansion and profitability and margin quality. Replimune Group, Inc. is the stronger pick specifically for capital preservation and lower volatility. IMVT and FATE also each lead in at least one category. As sector peers, any of these can serve as alternatives in the same allocation.
🥇AURA emerged as the overall leader. Track its performance:
AURA
Aura Biosciences, Inc.
The Growth Leader
AURA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth and quality.
- -19.0% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2%
- 3.9% margin vs FATE's -20.6%
Best for: growth and quality
REPL
Replimune Group, Inc.
The Income Pick
REPL is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.84
- Beta 0.84 vs FATE's 1.93, lower leverage
Best for: income & stability
IMVT
Immunovant, Inc.
The Long-Run Compounder
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 237.9% 10Y total return vs FATE's 15.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.66, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 9.09x
- Beta 1.66, current ratio 9.09x
- +110.9% vs REPL's -10.2%
Best for: long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night
FATE
Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
The Growth Play
FATE is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -51.2%, EPS growth 29.9%, 3Y rev CAGR -59.0%
- -39.4% ROA vs REPL's -72.2%, ROIC -36.5% vs -51.9%
Best for: growth exposure
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth |  AURA | -19.0% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2% |
| Quality / Margins | AURA | 3.9% margin vs FATE's -20.6% |
| Stability / Safety |  REPL | Beta 0.84 vs FATE's 1.93, lower leverage |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) |  IMVT | +110.9% vs REPL's -10.2% |
| Efficiency (ROA) |  FATE | -39.4% ROA vs REPL's -72.2%, ROIC -36.5% vs -51.9% |
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE — 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.
FY 2023
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
BEST OVERALLFATELAGGINGREPL
Who Leads Where
FATE leads in 2 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 1 • AURA leads 0 • REPL leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓REPLReplimune Group, Inc.
0leads
AURAAura Biosciences, Inc.
0leads
IMVTImmunovant, Inc.
1leads
FATEFate Therapeutics, In…
2leads
6 Total Categories
CATEGORYLEADERvs IMVTvs AURAMETRICS WON
Income & Cash FlowRevenue, margins, and cash flow strength
FATE1/1
Valuation MetricsMultiples, price ratios, and targets
Tied
—
Profitability & EfficiencyROE, ROIC, leverage, and quality scores
FATE4/7
Total Returns1Y, 3Y, 5Y total returns with dividends
IMVT5/6
Risk & VolatilityBeta, volatility, and downside exposure
Tied
—
Analyst OutlookRatings, price targets, and dividends
—
—
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FATE leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FATE and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $6M and $0 in trailing revenue.
| Metric | AURAAura Biosciences,… | REPLReplimune Group, … | IMVTImmunovant, Inc. | FATEFate Therapeutics… |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | — | $0 | $6M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$117M | -$323M | -$532M | -$127M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$112M | -$315M | -$506M | -$130M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$92M | -$283M | -$407M | -$108M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | +53.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -22.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -20.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -17.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | -20.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.1% | +2.5% | -14.1% | +18.8% |
FATE leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — IMVT and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | AURAAura Biosciences,… | REPLReplimune Group, … | IMVTImmunovant, Inc. | FATEFate Therapeutics… |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $412M | $733M | $6.9B | $240M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $369M | $698M | $6.0B | $271M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.64x | -2.89x | -12.14x | -1.79x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | 36.13x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.82x | 1.72x | 7.19x | 1.18x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — |
Evenly matched — IMVT and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FATE leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FATE delivers a -58.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-59 in annual profit, vs $-103 for REPL. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FATE's 0.38x.
| Metric | AURAAura Biosciences,… | REPLReplimune Group, … | IMVTImmunovant, Inc. | FATEFate Therapeutics… |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -78.1% | -102.7% | -68.2% | -58.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -64.1% | -72.2% | -62.2% | -39.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -72.4% | -51.9% | — | -36.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -70.8% | -55.9% | -68.3% | -43.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.13x | 0.18x | 0.00x | 0.38x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$42M | -$35M | -$902M | $31M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $60M | $111M | $902M | $47M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17M | $76M | $72,000 | $78M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -48.62x | — | — |
FATE leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IMVT leads this category, winning 5 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 $229 for FATE. Over the past 12 months, IMVT leads with a +110.9% total return vs REPL's -10.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMVT at 15.7% vs REPL's -27.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | AURAAura Biosciences,… | REPLReplimune Group, … | IMVTImmunovant, Inc. | FATEFate Therapeutics… |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +20.9% | -0.2% | +29.8% | +108.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -3.9% | -10.2% | +110.9% | +47.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -48.8% | -62.1% | +55.0% | -61.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -56.7% | -74.4% | +213.0% | -97.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -56.7% | -41.4% | +237.9% | +15.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -20.0% | -27.7% | +15.7% | -27.5% |
IMVT leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — REPL and IMVT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
REPL is the less volatile stock with a 0.84 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FATE's 1.93 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 REPL's 67.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | AURAAura Biosciences,… | REPLReplimune Group, … | IMVTImmunovant, Inc. | FATEFate Therapeutics… |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.68x | 0.84x | 1.66x | 1.93x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.54 | $13.24 | $36.27 | $2.88 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.73 | $1.50 | $14.32 | $0.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +67.2% | +67.1% | +92.7% | +71.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 29.7 | 63.4 | 57.9 | 47.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 549K | 8.9M | 1.9M | 3.2M |
Evenly matched — REPL and IMVT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AURA as "Buy", REPL as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", FATE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 167.0% upside for FATE (target: $6) vs 29.9% for IMVT (target: $44).
| Metric | AURAAura Biosciences,… | REPLReplimune Group, … | IMVTImmunovant, Inc. | FATEFate Therapeutics… |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $17.00 | $14.00 | $43.67 | $5.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 15 | 23 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Key Takeaway
FATE leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). IMVT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
Best OverallFate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE)Leads 2 of 6 categories
Loading custom metrics...
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE a better buy right now?
Analysts rate Aura Biosciences, Inc.
(AURA) a "Buy" — based on 8 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 — AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +213. 0%, compared to -97. 7% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +237. 9% versus AURA's -56. 7%. 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 — AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Replimune Group, Inc.
(REPL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 84β versus Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 's 1. 93β — meaning FATE is approximately 131% more volatile than REPL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 38% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE?
On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
grew EPS 29. 9% 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.
05Which has better profit margins — AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE?
Aura Biosciences, Inc.
(AURA) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -20. 5% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AURA leads at 0. 0% versus -22. 2% for FATE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AURA leads at 0. 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE?
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 AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Replimune Group, Inc.
(REPL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 84)). Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE) 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 (REPL: -41. 4%, FATE: +15. 7%), 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 AURA and REPL and IMVT and FATE?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
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.