Medical - Care Facilities
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
BACK vs DBVT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
BACK vs DBVT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Care Facilities | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $77K | $1721.78T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $23K | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-10M | $-168M |
| Gross Margin | -18.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | -398.1% | — |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $22M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $504K | $194M |
BACK vs DBVT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMAC Holdings, Inc. (BACK) | 100 | 0.1 | -99.9% |
| DBV Technologies S.… (DBVT) | 100 | 43.3 | -56.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BACK vs DBVT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BACK carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.05, yield 100.0%
- Rev growth -98.6%, EPS growth -5.4%, 3Y rev CAGR -82.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.05, current ratio 0.09x
DBVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- -86.8% 10Y total return vs BACK's -100.0%
- 0.3% margin vs BACK's -426.9%
- +114.1% vs BACK's -15.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -98.6% revenue growth vs DBVT's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 0.3% margin vs BACK's -426.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.05 vs DBVT's 1.26 | |
| Dividends | 100.0% yield; 1-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +114.1% vs BACK's -15.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -89.0% ROA vs BACK's -31.3% |
BACK vs DBVT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
DBVT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BACK and DBVT operate at a comparable scale, with $22,723 and $0 in trailing revenue.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $22,723 | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$9M | -$112M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$10M | -$168M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$5M | -$151M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -18.4% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -398.1% | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -426.9% | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -215.1% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -62.3% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +26.3% | +91.5% |
Valuation Metrics
DBVT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $77,135 | $1721.78T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$427,054 | $1721.78T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.00x | -0.76x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.07x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.66x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
DBVT leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), DBVT scores 4/9 vs BACK's 1/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -130.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -31.3% | -89.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | — |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | -145.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.13x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$504,189 | -$172M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $504,189 | $194M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $22M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -28.20x | -189.82x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
DBVT leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in DBVT five years ago would be worth $3,344 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7 for BACK. Over the past 12 months, DBVT leads with a +114.1% total return vs BACK's -15.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors DBVT at 6.4% vs BACK's -80.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -69.8% | +5.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -15.6% | +114.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.2% | +20.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | -66.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -86.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -80.3% | +6.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BACK and DBVT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BACK is the less volatile stock with a 0.05 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than DBVT's 1.26 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. DBVT currently trades 76.8% from its 52-week high vs BACK's 18.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.05x | 1.26x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.21 | $26.18 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.03 | $7.53 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +18.1% | +76.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.8 | 43.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3K | 253K |
Analyst Outlook
BACK leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
BACK is the only dividend payer here at 100.00% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $46.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +100.0% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.80 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% |
DBVT leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). BACK leads in 1 (Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
BACK vs DBVT: Frequently Asked Questions
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BACK or DBVT a better buy right now?
Analysts rate DBV Technologies S.
A. (DBVT) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — BACK or DBVT?
Over the past 5 years, DBV Technologies S.
A. (DBVT) delivered a total return of -66. 6%, compared to -99. 9% for IMAC Holdings, Inc. (BACK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: DBVT returned -86. 8% versus BACK's -100. 0%. 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 — BACK or DBVT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), IMAC Holdings, Inc.
(BACK) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 05β versus DBV Technologies S. A. 's 1. 26β — meaning DBVT is approximately 2646% more volatile than BACK relative to the S&P 500.
04Which is growing faster — BACK or DBVT?
On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: IMAC Holdings, Inc.
grew EPS -5. 4% year-over-year, compared to -347. 5% for DBV Technologies S. A.. 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 — BACK or DBVT?
DBV Technologies S.
A. (DBVT) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -125. 5% for IMAC Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: DBVT leads at 0. 0% versus -78. 0% for BACK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — DBVT 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 — BACK or DBVT?
In this comparison, BACK (100.
0% yield) pays a dividend. DBVT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is BACK or DBVT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, IMAC Holdings, Inc.
(BACK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 05), 100. 0% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BACK: -100. 0%, DBVT: -86. 8%), 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 BACK and DBVT?
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: BACK is a small-cap income-oriented stock; DBVT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. BACK pays a dividend while DBVT does 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.