Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE vs CRSP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE vs CRSP — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $412M | $733M | $6.90B | $240M | $4.80B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | — | $0.00 | $6M | $4M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-112M | $-315M | $-506M | $-130M | $-569M |
| Gross Margin | — | — | — | 53.8% | -53.6% |
| Operating Margin | — | — | — | -22.1% | -134.1% |
| Total Debt | $17M | $76M | $72K | $78M | $395M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $60M | $111M | $902M | $47M | $355M |
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE vs CRSP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| 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% |
| CRISPR Therapeutics… (CRSP) | 100 | 54.5 | -45.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE vs CRSP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AURA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth and quality.
- -19.0% revenue growth vs CRSP's -90.0%
- 3.9% margin vs CRSP's -138.6%
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
IMVT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 237.9% 10Y total return vs CRSP's 253.4%
- 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%
FATE is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -51.2%, EPS growth 29.9%, 3Y rev CAGR -59.0%
CRSP is the clearest fit if your priority is efficiency.
- -24.5% ROA vs REPL's -72.2%, ROIC -22.3% vs -51.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -19.0% revenue growth vs CRSP's -90.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.9% margin vs CRSP's -138.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.84 vs FATE's 1.93, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +110.9% vs REPL's -10.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -24.5% ROA vs REPL's -72.2%, ROIC -22.3% vs -51.9% |
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE vs CRSP — 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.
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE vs CRSP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FATE leads in 2 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 1 • AURA leads 0 • REPL leads 0 • CRSP leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FATE leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FATE and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $6M and $0 in trailing revenue. FATE is the more profitable business, keeping -20.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CRSP's -138.6%. On growth, CRSP holds the edge at +68.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | — | $0 | $6M | $4M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$117M | -$323M | -$532M | -$127M | -$531M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$112M | -$315M | -$506M | -$130M | -$569M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$92M | -$283M | -$407M | -$108M | -$401M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | +53.8% | -53.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -22.1% | -134.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -20.6% | -138.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -17.1% | -97.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | -20.3% | +68.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.1% | +2.5% | -14.1% | +18.8% | +19.0% |
Valuation Metrics
FATE leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $412M | $733M | $6.9B | $240M | $4.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $369M | $698M | $6.0B | $271M | $4.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.64x | -2.89x | -12.14x | -1.79x | -7.70x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | 36.13x | 1368.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.82x | 1.72x | 7.19x | 1.18x | 2.33x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — IMVT and CRSP each lead in 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 $-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. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AURA scores 2/9 vs CRSP's 1/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -78.1% | -102.7% | -68.2% | -58.9% | -30.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -64.1% | -72.2% | -62.2% | -39.4% | -24.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -72.4% | -51.9% | — | -36.5% | -22.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -70.8% | -55.9% | -68.3% | -43.1% | -26.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.13x | 0.18x | 0.00x | 0.38x | 0.21x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$42M | -$35M | -$902M | $31M | $40M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $60M | $111M | $902M | $47M | $355M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17M | $76M | $72,000 | $78M | $395M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -48.62x | — | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IMVT leads this category, winning 4 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 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +20.9% | -0.2% | +29.8% | +108.1% | -7.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -3.9% | -10.2% | +110.9% | +47.1% | +20.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -48.8% | -62.1% | +55.0% | -61.9% | -16.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -56.7% | -74.4% | +213.0% | -97.7% | -61.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -56.7% | -41.4% | +237.9% | +15.7% | +253.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -20.0% | -27.7% | +15.7% | -27.5% | -6.0% |
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 CRSP's 63.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.68x | 0.84x | 1.66x | 1.93x | 1.89x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.54 | $13.24 | $36.27 | $2.88 | $78.48 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.73 | $1.50 | $14.32 | $0.91 | $39.81 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +67.2% | +67.1% | +92.7% | +71.5% | +63.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 29.7 | 63.4 | 57.9 | 47.8 | 45.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 549K | 8.9M | 1.9M | 3.2M | 1.7M |
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", CRSP as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 167.0% upside for FATE (target: $6) vs 29.9% for IMVT (target: $44).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $17.00 | $14.00 | $43.67 | $5.50 | $71.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 15 | 23 | 31 | 38 |
| 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% | 0.0% |
FATE leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). IMVT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
AURA vs REPL vs IMVT vs FATE vs CRSP: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE or CRSP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
(FATE) is the stronger pick with -51. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -90. 0% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP). 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 or CRSP?
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: CRSP returned +253. 4% 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 or CRSP?
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 or CRSP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
(FATE) is pulling ahead at -51. 2% versus -90. 0% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fate Therapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 29. 9% 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 — AURA or REPL or IMVT or FATE or CRSP?
Aura Biosciences, Inc.
(AURA) 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: AURA leads at 0. 0% versus -161. 9% for CRSP. 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 or CRSP?
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 or CRSP 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 and CRSP?
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.