Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CELZ vs RCEL vs MDXG vs MESO vs FATE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Devices
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
CELZ vs RCEL vs MDXG vs MESO vs FATE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Medical - Devices | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $6M | $126M | $535M | $1.90B | $276M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3K | $72M | $389M | $17M | $7M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-6M | $-49M | $31M | $-102M | $-136M |
| Gross Margin | -19.9% | 82.1% | 81.0% | -208.5% | — |
| Operating Margin | -1494.1% | 89.0% | 10.2% | -6.4% | -22.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 288.0x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $2M | $23M | $128M | $78M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $7M | $10M | $166M | $161M | $47M |
CELZ vs RCEL vs MDXG vs MESO vs FATE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creative Medical Te… (CELZ) | 100 | 11.8 | -88.2% |
| AVITA Medical, Inc. (RCEL) | 100 | 12.8 | -87.2% |
| MiMedx Group, Inc. (MDXG) | 100 | 100.3 | +0.3% |
| Mesoblast Limited (MESO) | 100 | 57.4 | -42.6% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 7.4 | -92.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CELZ vs RCEL vs MDXG vs MESO vs FATE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CELZ is the clearest fit if your priority is defensive.
- Beta 1.40, current ratio 25.97x
Among these 5 stocks, RCEL doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MDXG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- beta 1.21
- Lower volatility, beta 1.21, Low D/E 8.8%, current ratio 4.32x
- 7.9% margin vs CELZ's -1.9K%
- Beta 1.21 vs FATE's 1.99, lower leverage
MESO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 191.4%, EPS growth 5.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.0%
- -2.5% 10Y total return vs FATE's 38.2%
- 191.4% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2%
FATE ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +132.0% vs RCEL's -55.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 191.4% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2% | |
| Quality / Margins | 7.9% margin vs CELZ's -1.9K% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.21 vs FATE's 1.99, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +132.0% vs RCEL's -55.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 9.7% ROA vs RCEL's -86.2%, ROIC 42.3% vs 8.2% |
CELZ vs RCEL vs MDXG vs MESO vs FATE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
CELZ vs RCEL vs MDXG vs MESO vs FATE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MDXG leads in 1 of 6 categories
CELZ leads 0 • RCEL leads 0 • MESO leads 0 • FATE leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — RCEL and MDXG each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MDXG is the larger business by revenue, generating $389M annually — 129805.3x CELZ's $3,000. MDXG is the more profitable business, keeping 7.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CELZ's -1920.7%. On growth, MESO holds the edge at +4.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3,000 | $72M | $389M | $17M | $7M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$4M | $64M | $53M | -$106M | -$148M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$6M | -$49M | $31M | -$102M | -$136M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$6M | -$31M | $66M | -$49M | -$88M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -19.9% | +82.1% | +81.0% | -2.1% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -1494.1% | +89.0% | +10.2% | -6.4% | -22.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -1920.7% | -67.8% | +7.9% | -5.9% | -20.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1862.7% | -43.6% | +17.0% | -2.8% | -13.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -100.0% | -4.3% | -33.1% | +4.6% | -26.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +54.2% | +15.9% | -2.4% | +16.0% | +38.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CELZ and RCEL and MDXG and MESO each lead in 1 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, RCEL's 1.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than MDXG's 5.0x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6M | $126M | $535M | $1.9B | $276M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$1M | $118M | $391M | $1.9B | $307M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.92x | -2.36x | 11.25x | -17.55x | -2.08x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 288.00x | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 1.84x | 4.97x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 993.55x | 1.75x | 1.28x | 110.59x | 41.49x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.73x | — | 2.10x | 2.98x | 1.37x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 7.33x | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
MDXG leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MDXG delivers a 12.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $-88 for CELZ. MDXG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.09x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FATE's 0.38x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MDXG scores 5/9 vs FATE's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -88.4% | — | +12.9% | -17.1% | -65.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -84.7% | -86.2% | +9.7% | -13.0% | -42.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -12.8% | +8.2% | +42.3% | -8.5% | -36.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -88.6% | +2.4% | +25.7% | -9.8% | -43.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | — | 0.09x | 0.21x | 0.38x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$7M | -$8M | -$144M | -$33M | $31M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $7M | $10M | $166M | $161M | $47M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $2M | $23M | $128M | $78M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 25.32x | -5.84x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — MESO and FATE each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MESO five years ago would be worth $10,380 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $142 for CELZ. Over the past 12 months, FATE leads with a +132.0% total return vs RCEL's -55.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MESO at 29.3% vs RCEL's -36.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +17.3% | +18.4% | -44.4% | -18.8% | +141.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +10.5% | -55.9% | -51.5% | +29.2% | +132.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -64.1% | -74.4% | -38.1% | +116.1% | -56.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.6% | -78.8% | -61.9% | +3.8% | -96.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -59.5% | -49.7% | -2.5% | +38.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -28.9% | -36.5% | -14.8% | +29.3% | -24.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MDXG and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MDXG is the less volatile stock with a 1.21 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FATE's 1.99 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FATE currently trades 97.0% from its 52-week high vs CELZ's 37.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.40x | 1.89x | 1.21x | 1.63x | 1.99x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.25 | $9.85 | $7.99 | $21.50 | $2.46 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.50 | $3.22 | $3.02 | $9.88 | $0.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +37.0% | +41.7% | +45.1% | +68.6% | +97.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.0 | 44.4 | 50.3 | 42.6 | 82.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 54K | 201K | 1.4M | 254K | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RCEL as "Buy", MDXG as "Buy", MESO as "Buy", FATE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1552.7% upside for FATE (target: $40) vs -22.0% for MESO (target: $12).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $6.75 | $10.00 | $11.50 | $39.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 7 | 15 | 11 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.2% | 0.0% | +0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
MDXG leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Profitability & Efficiency. 4 categories are tied.
CELZ vs RCEL vs MDXG vs MESO vs FATE: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Mesoblast Limited (MESO) is the stronger pick with 191.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). MiMedx Group, Inc. (MDXG) offers the better valuation at 11. 3x trailing P/E (288. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate AVITA Medical, Inc. (RCEL) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE?
Over the past 5 years, Mesoblast Limited (MESO) delivered a total return of +3.
8%, compared to -98. 6% for Creative Medical Technology Holdings, Inc. (CELZ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FATE returned +38. 2% versus CELZ'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 — CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), MiMedx Group, Inc.
(MDXG) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 21β versus Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 's 1. 99β — meaning FATE is approximately 64% more volatile than MDXG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, MiMedx Group, Inc. (MDXG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 9% versus 38% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Mesoblast Limited (MESO) is pulling ahead at 191.
4% versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Creative Medical Technology Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 32. 1% year-over-year, compared to 5. 6% for Mesoblast Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, RCEL leads at 27. 7% 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 — CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE?
MiMedx Group, Inc.
(MDXG) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 6% net margin versus -999. 2% for Creative Medical Technology Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RCEL leads at 89. 0% versus -1023. 8% for CELZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MDXG leads at 82. 6%, 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.
06Is CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FATE: 1552.
7% to $39. 50.
07Which pays a better dividend — CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE?
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.
08Is CELZ or RCEL or MDXG or MESO or FATE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, MiMedx Group, Inc.
(MDXG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 21)). Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE) carries a higher beta of 1. 99 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MDXG: -49. 7%, FATE: +38. 2%), 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.
09What are the main differences between CELZ and RCEL and MDXG and MESO and FATE?
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: CELZ is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RCEL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MDXG is a small-cap high-growth stock; MESO is a small-cap high-growth stock; FATE is a small-cap quality compounder 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.