Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BRNS vs IMVT vs NKTX vs FATE vs RCUS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
BRNS vs IMVT vs NKTX vs FATE vs RCUS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $27M | $5.53B | $223M | $280M | $2.50B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $7M | $236M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-52M | $-464M | $-103M | $-136M | $-369M |
| Gross Margin | — | — | — | — | 90.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | — | — | -22.2% | -168.6% |
| Total Debt | $11M | $98K | $80M | $78M | $99M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $70M | $714M | $28M | $47M | $222M |
BRNS vs IMVT vs NKTX vs FATE vs RCUS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Apr 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barinthus Biotherap… (BRNS) | 100 | 4.8 | -95.2% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 173.6 | +73.6% |
| Nkarta, Inc. (NKTX) | 100 | 9.9 | -90.1% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 2.8 | -97.2% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 73.5 | -26.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BRNS vs IMVT vs NKTX vs FATE vs RCUS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BRNS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- beta 1.28
- Lower volatility, beta 1.28, Low D/E 15.2%, current ratio 7.77x
- Beta 1.28, current ratio 7.77x
- Beta 1.28 vs FATE's 2.17, lower leverage
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 173.6% 10Y total return vs RCUS's 45.9%
NKTX carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth and quality.
- 8.0% revenue growth vs BRNS's -100.0%
- 3.9% margin vs FATE's -20.5%
- -24.0% ROA vs BRNS's -48.8%, ROIC -24.3% vs -174.5%
Among these 5 stocks, FATE doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
RCUS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth -4.3%, EPS growth -4.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 30.2%
- +209.6% vs BRNS's -32.3%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.0% revenue growth vs BRNS's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.9% margin vs FATE's -20.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.28 vs FATE's 2.17, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +209.6% vs BRNS's -32.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -24.0% ROA vs BRNS's -48.8%, ROIC -24.3% vs -174.5% |
BRNS vs IMVT vs NKTX vs FATE 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.
BRNS vs IMVT vs NKTX vs FATE vs RCUS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RCUS leads in 1 of 6 categories
NKTX leads 1 • IMVT leads 1 • BRNS leads 0 • FATE leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RCUS leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RCUS and NKTX operate at a comparable scale, with $236M and $0 in trailing revenue. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -156.4% (RCUS) to -20.5% (FATE). On growth, FATE holds the edge at -26.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $0 | $0 | $7M | $236M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$36M | -$487M | -$113M | -$148M | -$391M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$52M | -$464M | -$103M | -$136M | -$369M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$36M | -$423M | -$94M | -$88M | -$489M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | — | +90.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -22.2% | -168.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -20.5% | -156.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | -13.2% | -2.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | -26.4% | -39.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +71.4% | +19.7% | +25.6% | +38.6% | +10.5% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — BRNS and IMVT and RCUS each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $27M | $5.5B | $223M | $280M | $2.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$32M | $4.8B | $275M | $312M | $2.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.41x | -9.97x | -1.97x | -2.11x | -7.54x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | — | — | 42.18x | 10.11x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.37x | 5.83x | 0.52x | 1.39x | 4.22x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
NKTX leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NKTX delivers a -30.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-30 in annual profit, vs $-69 for RCUS. 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), NKTX scores 4/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -63.8% | -47.1% | -30.4% | -65.8% | -69.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -48.8% | -44.1% | -24.0% | -42.7% | -35.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -174.5% | — | -24.3% | -36.5% | -64.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -46.6% | -66.1% | -30.6% | -43.1% | -42.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.15x | 0.00x | 0.20x | 0.38x | 0.16x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$59M | -$714M | $52M | $31M | -$123M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $70M | $714M | $28M | $47M | $222M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $11M | $98,000 | $80M | $78M | $99M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -1808.55x | — | — | — | -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 $16,241 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $318 for FATE. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +209.6% total return vs BRNS's -32.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMVT at 12.1% vs BRNS's -34.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -8.8% | +5.1% | +68.4% | +145.5% | +6.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -32.3% | +96.1% | +68.4% | +143.0% | +209.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -71.4% | +40.9% | -31.5% | -55.4% | +24.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.0% | +62.4% | -88.6% | -96.8% | -18.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.2% | +173.6% | -93.4% | +40.5% | +45.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -34.1% | +12.1% | -11.9% | -23.6% | +7.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BRNS and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BRNS is the less volatile stock with a 1.28 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FATE's 2.17 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 BRNS's 22.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.28x | 1.37x | 2.07x | 2.17x | 1.95x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.92 | $30.09 | $3.65 | $2.46 | $28.72 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.51 | $13.36 | $1.63 | $0.91 | $7.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +22.9% | +90.5% | +86.3% | +98.6% | +86.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 54.9 | 60.2 | 66.9 | 81.0 | 60.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 25K | 1.4M | 802K | 1.9M | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: IMVT as "Buy", NKTX as "Buy", FATE as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1525.5% upside for FATE (target: $40) vs 21.0% for RCUS (target: $30).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $45.50 | $21.60 | $39.50 | $30.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 23 | 12 | 31 | 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% | 0.0% |
RCUS leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). NKTX leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
BRNS vs IMVT vs NKTX vs FATE vs RCUS: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BRNS or IMVT or NKTX or FATE or RCUS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Arcus Biosciences, Inc.
(RCUS) is the stronger pick with -4. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Barinthus Biotherapeutics plc (BRNS). Analysts rate Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) a "Buy" — based on 23 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 — BRNS or IMVT or NKTX or FATE or RCUS?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +62. 4%, compared to -96. 8% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +173. 6% versus BRNS's -95. 2%. 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 — BRNS or IMVT or NKTX or FATE or RCUS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Barinthus Biotherapeutics plc (BRNS) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
28β versus Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 's 2. 17β — meaning FATE is approximately 69% more volatile than BRNS 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 — BRNS or IMVT or NKTX or FATE or RCUS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arcus Biosciences, Inc.
(RCUS) is pulling ahead at -4. 3% versus -100. 0% for Barinthus Biotherapeutics plc (BRNS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Nkarta, Inc. grew EPS 33. 3% 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 — BRNS or IMVT or NKTX or FATE or RCUS?
Barinthus Biotherapeutics plc (BRNS) is the more profitable company, earning 0.
0% net margin versus -20. 5% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BRNS leads at 0. 0% versus -22. 2% for FATE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RCUS leads at 96. 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 — BRNS or IMVT or NKTX or FATE 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 BRNS or IMVT or NKTX or FATE or RCUS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+173. 6% 10Y return). Nkarta, Inc. (NKTX) carries a higher beta of 2. 07 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IMVT: +173. 6%, NKTX: -93. 4%), 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 BRNS and IMVT and NKTX and FATE 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.