Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
BCAB vs FATE vs IMVT vs NTLA
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
BCAB vs FATE vs IMVT vs NTLA — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $5M | $280M | $5.53B | $1.62B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2M | $7M | $0.00 | $68M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-60M | $-136M | $-464M | $-413M |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | — | — | -25.6% |
| Operating Margin | -29.7% | -22.2% | — | -6.5% |
| Total Debt | $6M | $78M | $98K | $93M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $7M | $47M | $714M | $155M |
BCAB vs FATE vs IMVT vs NTLA — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| BioAtla, Inc. (BCAB) | 100 | 0.3 | -99.7% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 2.7 | -97.3% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 58.9 | -41.1% |
| Intellia Therapeuti… (NTLA) | 100 | 25.2 | -74.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BCAB vs FATE vs IMVT vs NTLA
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BCAB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- beta 0.51
- Beta 0.51 vs NTLA's 2.37
FATE carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for momentum and efficiency.
- +143.0% vs BCAB's -80.6%
- -42.7% ROA vs BCAB's -250.6%
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 173.6% 10Y total return vs FATE's 40.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.37, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- Beta 1.37, current ratio 11.16x
- 3.2% margin vs BCAB's -29.8%
NTLA is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 16.9%, EPS growth 27.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 9.1%
- 16.9% revenue growth vs BCAB's -81.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.9% revenue growth vs BCAB's -81.8% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.2% margin vs BCAB's -29.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.51 vs NTLA's 2.37 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +143.0% vs BCAB's -80.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -42.7% ROA vs BCAB's -250.6% |
BCAB vs FATE vs IMVT vs NTLA — 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.
BCAB vs FATE vs IMVT vs NTLA — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IMVT leads in 2 of 6 categories
NTLA leads 1 • BCAB leads 0 • FATE leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NTLA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NTLA and IMVT 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 BCAB's -29.8%. On growth, NTLA holds the edge at +78.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2M | $7M | $0 | $68M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$59M | -$148M | -$487M | -$431M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$60M | -$136M | -$464M | -$413M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$34M | -$88M | -$423M | -$396M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | — | — | -25.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -29.7% | -22.2% | — | -6.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -29.8% | -20.5% | — | -6.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -17.0% | -13.2% | — | -5.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -26.4% | — | +78.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +46.7% | +38.6% | +19.7% | +34.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — BCAB and FATE and IMVT each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5M | $280M | $5.5B | $1.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $4M | $312M | $4.8B | $1.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.09x | -2.11x | -9.97x | -3.60x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.56x | 42.18x | — | 23.93x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 1.39x | 5.83x | 2.21x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
IMVT leads this category, winning 4 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IMVT delivers a -47.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-47 in annual profit, vs $-66 for FATE. 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), NTLA scores 4/9 vs IMVT's 2/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -65.8% | -47.1% | -56.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.5% | -42.7% | -44.1% | -45.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -36.5% | — | -44.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -4.0% | -43.1% | -66.1% | -48.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.38x | 0.00x | 0.14x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$918,000 | $31M | -$714M | -$62M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $7M | $47M | $714M | $155M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $6M | $78M | $98,000 | $93M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | — | — |
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 $16,241 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $19 for BCAB. Over the past 12 months, FATE leads with a +143.0% total return vs BCAB's -80.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMVT at 12.1% vs BCAB's -70.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -83.7% | +145.5% | +5.1% | +48.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -80.6% | +143.0% | +96.1% | +88.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.3% | -55.4% | +40.9% | -68.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -96.8% | +62.4% | -79.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.7% | +40.5% | +173.6% | -42.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -70.1% | -23.6% | +12.1% | -31.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BCAB and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BCAB is the less volatile stock with a 0.51 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NTLA's 2.37 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 BCAB's 6.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.51x | 2.17x | 1.37x | 2.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $71.50 | $2.46 | $30.09 | $28.25 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.33 | $0.91 | $13.36 | $6.83 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +6.1% | +98.6% | +90.5% | +48.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.5 | 81.0 | 60.2 | 50.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 40K | 1.9M | 1.4M | 5.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BCAB as "Buy", FATE as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", NTLA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 5647.1% upside for BCAB (target: $250) vs 52.3% for NTLA (target: $21).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $250.00 | $39.50 | $45.50 | $20.88 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 31 | 23 | 39 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
IMVT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). NTLA leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
BCAB vs FATE vs IMVT vs NTLA: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BCAB or FATE or IMVT 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 -81. 8% for BioAtla, Inc. (BCAB). Analysts rate BioAtla, Inc. (BCAB) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 — BCAB or FATE or IMVT or NTLA?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +62. 4%, compared to -99. 8% for BioAtla, Inc. (BCAB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +173. 6% versus BCAB's -99. 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 — BCAB or FATE or IMVT or NTLA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), BioAtla, Inc.
(BCAB) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 51β versus Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. 's 2. 37β — meaning NTLA is approximately 364% more volatile than BCAB 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 — BCAB or FATE or IMVT or NTLA?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
(NTLA) is pulling ahead at 16. 9% versus -81. 8% for BioAtla, Inc. (BCAB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fate Therapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 29. 9% year-over-year, compared to -45. 2% for Immunovant, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NTLA leads at 9. 1% 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 — BCAB or FATE or IMVT or NTLA?
Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -29. 8% for BioAtla, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IMVT leads at 0. 0% versus -29. 7% for BCAB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BCAB leads at 100. 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 — BCAB or FATE or IMVT 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 BCAB or FATE or IMVT or NTLA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, BioAtla, Inc.
(BCAB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 51)). Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. (NTLA) carries a higher beta of 2. 37 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (BCAB: -99. 7%, NTLA: -42. 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 BCAB and FATE and IMVT 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: BCAB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FATE is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IMVT 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.