Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
BCAB vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
BCAB vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $6M | $190M | $5.88B | $2.55B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2M | $150M | $0.00 | $236M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-60M | $-75M | $-464M | $-369M |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | — | — | 90.7% |
| Operating Margin | -29.7% | -48.7% | — | -168.6% |
| Total Debt | $6M | $37M | $98K | $99M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $7M | $57M | $714M | $222M |
BCAB vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS — 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% |
| MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) | 100 | 13.1 | -86.9% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 62.7 | -37.3% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 97.7 | -2.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BCAB vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS
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 0.33
- Beta 0.33 vs RCUS's 1.84
MGNX carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth and efficiency.
- 0.8% revenue growth vs BCAB's -81.8%
- -29.9% ROA vs BCAB's -250.6%
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 190.9% 10Y total return vs RCUS's 49.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.36, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- Beta 1.36, current ratio 11.16x
- 3.2% margin vs BCAB's -29.8%
RCUS is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -4.3%, EPS growth -4.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 30.2%
- +197.3% vs BCAB's -79.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 0.8% revenue growth vs BCAB's -81.8% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.2% margin vs BCAB's -29.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.33 vs RCUS's 1.84 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +197.3% vs BCAB's -79.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -29.9% ROA vs BCAB's -250.6% |
BCAB vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
BCAB vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MGNX leads in 2 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 2 • BCAB leads 0 • RCUS leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MGNX leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RCUS and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $236M and $0 in trailing revenue. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -49.9% (MGNX) to -29.8% (BCAB). On growth, MGNX holds the edge at +132.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2M | $150M | $0 | $236M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$59M | -$73M | -$487M | -$391M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$60M | -$75M | -$464M | -$369M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$34M | -$83M | -$423M | -$489M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | — | — | +90.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -29.7% | -48.7% | — | -168.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -29.8% | -49.9% | — | -156.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -17.0% | -55.5% | — | -2.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +132.5% | — | -39.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +46.7% | +8.0% | +19.7% | +10.5% |
Valuation Metrics
MGNX leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6M | $190M | $5.9B | $2.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5M | $170M | $5.2B | $2.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.10x | -2.54x | -10.60x | -7.71x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.85x | 1.27x | — | 10.34x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 3.41x | 6.20x | 4.32x |
| 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 $-120 for MGNX. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MGNX's 0.66x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MGNX scores 3/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -120.2% | -47.1% | -69.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.5% | -29.9% | -44.1% | -35.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -18.8% | — | -64.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -4.0% | -34.7% | -66.1% | -42.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.66x | 0.00x | 0.16x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$918,000 | -$20M | -$714M | -$123M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $7M | $57M | $714M | $222M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $6M | $37M | $98,000 | $99M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | — | -13.38x |
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 $18,445 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $21 for BCAB. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +197.3% total return vs BCAB's -79.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMVT at 14.4% vs BCAB's -69.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -81.9% | +86.3% | +11.7% | +8.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -79.5% | +94.8% | +102.4% | +197.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.0% | -58.6% | +49.8% | +27.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -90.2% | +84.4% | -12.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.7% | -84.0% | +190.9% | +49.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -69.0% | -25.4% | +14.4% | +8.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BCAB and IMVT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BCAB is the less volatile stock with a 0.33 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RCUS's 1.84 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMVT currently trades 96.2% from its 52-week high vs BCAB's 6.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.33x | 1.76x | 1.36x | 1.84x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $71.50 | $3.88 | $30.09 | $28.72 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.33 | $1.19 | $13.36 | $7.72 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +6.8% | +77.3% | +96.2% | +88.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.2 | 42.6 | 50.6 | 52.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 41K | 1.1M | 1.4M | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BCAB as "Buy", MGNX as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 5065.3% upside for BCAB (target: $250) vs 18.3% for RCUS (target: $30).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $250.00 | $6.00 | $45.50 | $30.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 22 | 23 | 18 |
| 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% |
MGNX leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). IMVT leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). 1 tied.
BCAB vs MGNX vs IMVT vs RCUS: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BCAB or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MacroGenics, Inc.
(MGNX) is the stronger pick with 0. 8% 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 MGNX or IMVT or RCUS?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +84. 4%, compared to -99. 8% for BioAtla, Inc. (BCAB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +190. 9% 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 MGNX or IMVT or RCUS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), BioAtla, Inc.
(BCAB) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 33β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 84β — meaning RCUS is approximately 449% 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 66% for MacroGenics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — BCAB or MGNX or IMVT or RCUS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MacroGenics, Inc.
(MGNX) is pulling ahead at 0. 8% versus -81. 8% for BioAtla, Inc. (BCAB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: BioAtla, Inc. grew EPS 29. 9% year-over-year, compared to -45. 2% for Immunovant, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RCUS leads at 30. 2% 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 MGNX or IMVT or RCUS?
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 MGNX or IMVT or RCUS?
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 MGNX or IMVT or RCUS 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. 33)). MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX) carries a higher beta of 1. 76 — 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%, MGNX: -84. 0%), 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 MGNX and IMVT and RCUS?
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.
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.