Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
BMEA vs NTRA vs KO vs ILMN vs BEAM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Biotechnology
BMEA vs NTRA vs KO vs ILMN vs BEAM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $70M | $30.37B | $355.61B | $24.45B | $2.98B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $2.50B | $49.28B | $4.39B | $132M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-45M | $-226M | $13.70B | $853M | $-65M |
| Gross Margin | — | 65.2% | 61.7% | 67.1% | -64.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | -13.0% | 29.3% | 20.9% | -281.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 25.3x | 30.8x | — |
| Total Debt | $2M | $214M | $45.49B | $2.55B | $294M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $56M | $1.08B | $10.27B | $1.42B | $295M |
BMEA vs NTRA vs KO vs ILMN vs BEAM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Apr 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biomea Fusion, Inc. (BMEA) | 100 | 6.9 | -93.1% |
| Natera, Inc. (NTRA) | 100 | 192.8 | +92.8% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 153.1 | +53.1% |
| Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) | 100 | 42.2 | -57.8% |
| Beam Therapeutics I… (BEAM) | 100 | 35.4 | -64.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BMEA vs NTRA vs KO vs ILMN vs BEAM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BMEA lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
NTRA is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 17.3% 10Y total return vs KO's 121.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.24, Low D/E 12.5%, current ratio 3.39x
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 56 yrs, beta -0.20, yield 2.5%
- PEG 2.26 vs ILMN's 7.29
- Better valuation composite
- 27.8% margin vs BEAM's -49.2%
ILMN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if defensive is your priority.
- Beta 0.99, current ratio 2.08x
- Beta 0.99 vs BEAM's 2.18
- +82.7% vs BMEA's -55.2%
- 13.4% ROA vs BMEA's -77.1%
BEAM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 120.0%, EPS growth 82.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 31.9%
- 120.0% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 120.0% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs BEAM's -49.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.99 vs BEAM's 2.18 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +82.7% vs BMEA's -55.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.4% ROA vs BMEA's -77.1% |
BMEA vs NTRA vs KO vs ILMN vs BEAM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
BMEA vs NTRA vs KO vs ILMN vs BEAM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories
ILMN leads 2 • NTRA leads 1 • BMEA leads 0 • BEAM leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO and BMEA operate at a comparable scale, with $49.3B and $0 in trailing revenue. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BEAM's -49.2%. On growth, NTRA holds the edge at +38.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $2.5B | $49.3B | $4.4B | $132M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$66M | -$313M | $15.5B | $1.1B | -$355M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$45M | -$226M | $13.7B | $853M | -$65M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$56M | $92M | $12.6B | $989M | -$384M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +65.2% | +61.7% | +67.1% | -64.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -13.0% | +29.3% | +20.9% | -2.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -9.0% | +27.8% | +19.4% | -49.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +3.7% | +25.5% | +22.5% | -2.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +38.8% | +12.1% | +4.8% | -100.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +78.8% | -20.0% | +18.2% | +6.1% | +26.6% |
Valuation Metrics
ILMN leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 27.2x trailing earnings, KO trades at a 8% valuation discount to ILMN's 29.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), KO offers better value at 2.43x vs ILMN's 6.98x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $70M | $30.4B | $355.6B | $24.5B | $3.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $15M | $29.5B | $390.8B | $25.6B | $3.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.99x | -139.52x | 27.18x | 29.54x | -35.84x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 25.27x | 30.83x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x | 6.98x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 26.39x | 22.56x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 13.17x | 7.42x | 5.64x | 21.34x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.07x | 16.93x | 10.40x | 9.22x | 2.32x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 278.35x | 67.15x | 26.26x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-197 for BMEA. BMEA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ILMN scores 8/9 vs BMEA's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -196.7% | -15.1% | +41.1% | +32.8% | -5.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -77.1% | -10.4% | +13.1% | +13.4% | -4.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -36.1% | +15.8% | +16.8% | -31.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -153.8% | -18.3% | +17.3% | +17.6% | -33.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.05x | 0.13x | 1.33x | 0.94x | 0.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$54M | -$862M | $35.2B | $1.1B | -$1M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $56M | $1.1B | $10.3B | $1.4B | $295M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2M | $214M | $45.5B | $2.6B | $294M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -34.29x | 10.70x | 12.09x | 1.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NTRA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NTRA five years ago would be worth $20,440 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $569 for BMEA. Over the past 12 months, ILMN leads with a +82.7% total return vs BMEA's -55.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NTRA at 62.4% vs BMEA's -69.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -12.7% | -7.3% | +20.3% | +19.8% | +7.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -55.2% | +29.0% | +17.2% | +82.7% | +66.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.1% | +328.7% | +47.0% | -20.4% | -12.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -94.3% | +104.4% | +65.6% | -63.4% | -68.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -93.1% | +1731.3% | +121.1% | +18.6% | +54.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -69.2% | +62.4% | +13.7% | -7.3% | -4.2% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BEAM's 2.18 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs BMEA's 38.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.78x | 1.24x | -0.20x | 0.99x | 2.18x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.08 | $256.36 | $84.04 | $177.22 | $36.44 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.87 | $131.81 | $65.35 | $85.77 | $15.60 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +38.0% | +82.7% | +98.3% | +90.8% | +79.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 38.2 | 55.9 | 60.6 | 66.4 | 48.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.5M | 1.4M | 12.7M | 1.7M | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BMEA as "Buy", NTRA as "Buy", KO as "Buy", ILMN as "Buy", BEAM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1626.5% upside for BMEA (target: $20) vs -5.9% for ILMN (target: $151). KO is the only dividend payer here at 2.46% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $20.20 | $261.00 | $86.13 | $151.40 | $48.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 27 | 48 | 50 | 27 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 56 | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +3.0% | 0.0% |
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). ILMN leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency).
BMEA vs NTRA vs KO vs ILMN vs BEAM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Beam Therapeutics Inc.
(BEAM) is the stronger pick with 120. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). The Coca-Cola Company (KO) offers the better valuation at 27. 2x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Biomea Fusion, Inc. (BMEA) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 has the better valuation — BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM?
On trailing P/E, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the cheapest at 27.
2x versus Illumina, Inc. at 29. 5x. On forward P/E, The Coca-Cola Company is actually cheaper at 25. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Coca-Cola Company wins at 2. 26x versus Illumina, Inc. 's 7. 29x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM?
Over the past 5 years, Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) delivered a total return of +104. 4%, compared to -94. 3% for Biomea Fusion, Inc. (BMEA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +1731% versus BMEA's -93. 1%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Beam Therapeutics Inc. 's 2. 18β — meaning BEAM is approximately -1190% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Biomea Fusion, Inc. (BMEA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Beam Therapeutics Inc.
(BEAM) is pulling ahead at 120. 0% versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Illumina, Inc. grew EPS 170. 9% year-over-year, compared to 0. 7% for Natera, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NTRA leads at 41. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -57. 2% for Beam Therapeutics Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -274. 6% for BEAM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BEAM leads at 84. 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.
07Is BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 26x versus Illumina, Inc. 's 7. 29x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) trades at 25. 3x forward P/E versus 30. 8x for Illumina, Inc. — 5. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BMEA: 1626. 5% to $20. 20.
08Which pays a better dividend — BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. BMEA, NTRA, ILMN, BEAM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BMEA or NTRA or KO or ILMN or BEAM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Beam Therapeutics Inc. (BEAM) carries a higher beta of 2. 18 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, BEAM: +54. 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.
10What are the main differences between BMEA and NTRA and KO and ILMN and BEAM?
These companies operate in different sectors (BMEA (Healthcare) and NTRA (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and ILMN (Healthcare) and BEAM (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BMEA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NTRA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; ILMN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BEAM is a small-cap high-growth stock. KO pays a dividend while BMEA, NTRA, ILMN, BEAM do 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.