Medical - Devices
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CERS vs BLFS vs FATE vs TXG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Instruments & Supplies
Biotechnology
Medical - Healthcare Information Services
CERS vs BLFS vs FATE vs TXG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Devices | Medical - Instruments & Supplies | Biotechnology | Medical - Healthcare Information Services |
| Market Cap | $523M | $1.13B | $280M | $2.89B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $217M | $100M | $7M | $643M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-10M | $-10M | $-136M | $-44M |
| Gross Margin | 53.0% | 64.0% | — | 69.1% |
| Operating Margin | -8.2% | -10.9% | -22.2% | -9.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 156.4x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $97M | $18M | $78M | $158M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $33M | $47M | $474M |
CERS vs BLFS vs FATE vs TXG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cerus Corporation (CERS) | 100 | 42.0 | -58.0% |
| BioLife Solutions, … (BLFS) | 100 | 140.5 | +40.5% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 7.5 | -92.5% |
| 10x Genomics, Inc. (TXG) | 100 | 28.8 | -71.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CERS vs BLFS vs FATE vs TXG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CERS is the clearest fit if your priority is quality.
- -4.4% margin vs FATE's -20.5%
BLFS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 1.67
- Rev growth 17.0%, EPS growth 43.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.1%
- 12.2% 10Y total return vs CERS's -54.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.67, Low D/E 4.8%, current ratio 5.23x
FATE lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
TXG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and momentum is your priority.
- Better valuation composite
- +169.8% vs BLFS's +8.3%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 17.0% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | -4.4% margin vs FATE's -20.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.67 vs TXG's 2.32, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +169.8% vs BLFS's +8.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -2.6% ROA vs FATE's -42.7%, ROIC -2.8% vs -36.5% |
CERS vs BLFS vs FATE vs TXG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CERS vs BLFS vs FATE vs TXG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BLFS leads in 3 of 6 categories
CERS leads 1 • FATE leads 0 • TXG leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CERS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TXG is the larger business by revenue, generating $643M annually — 96.7x FATE's $7M. CERS is the more profitable business, keeping -4.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FATE's -20.5%. On growth, CERS holds the edge at +24.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $217M | $100M | $7M | $643M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$16M | -$7M | -$148M | -$29M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$10M | -$10M | -$136M | -$44M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$1M | $11M | -$88M | $130M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +53.0% | +64.0% | — | +69.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -8.2% | -10.9% | -22.2% | -9.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -4.4% | -10.5% | -20.5% | -6.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -0.6% | +10.6% | -13.2% | +20.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +24.1% | +14.9% | -26.4% | +0.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +75.7% | — | +38.6% | +67.5% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CERS and BLFS and FATE and TXG each lead in 1 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $523M | $1.1B | $280M | $2.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $600M | $1.1B | $312M | $2.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -31.83x | -92.48x | -2.11x | -64.06x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 156.43x | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.54x | 11.74x | 42.18x | 4.50x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.66x | 3.02x | 1.39x | 3.51x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 61.37x | 106.19x | — | 22.23x |
Profitability & Efficiency
BLFS leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BLFS delivers a -2.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-3 in annual profit, vs $-66 for FATE. BLFS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CERS's 1.49x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BLFS scores 6/9 vs FATE's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -15.2% | -2.9% | -65.8% | -5.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -4.4% | -2.6% | -42.7% | -4.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -19.7% | -2.8% | -36.5% | -17.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -28.1% | -3.2% | -43.1% | -13.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.49x | 0.05x | 0.38x | 0.20x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $77M | -$15M | $31M | -$316M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $33M | $47M | $474M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $97M | $18M | $78M | $158M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2.63x | -18.62x | — | -7374.83x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
BLFS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BLFS five years ago would be worth $7,300 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $318 for FATE. Over the past 12 months, TXG leads with a +169.8% total return vs BLFS's +8.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors BLFS at 6.5% vs TXG's -25.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +32.5% | -3.2% | +145.5% | +34.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +100.8% | +8.3% | +143.0% | +169.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +18.1% | +20.7% | -55.4% | -58.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -57.5% | -27.0% | -96.8% | -84.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -54.5% | +1221.1% | +40.5% | -57.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +5.7% | +6.5% | -23.6% | -25.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BLFS and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BLFS is the less volatile stock with a 1.67 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TXG's 2.32 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 BLFS's 78.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.13x | 1.67x | 2.17x | 2.32x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.15 | $29.62 | $2.46 | $26.45 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.15 | $17.86 | $0.91 | $7.72 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +82.9% | +78.1% | +98.6% | +84.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 70.6 | 56.7 | 81.0 | 53.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.2M | 422K | 1.9M | 2.3M |
Analyst Outlook
BLFS leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CERS as "Buy", BLFS as "Buy", FATE as "Buy", TXG as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 1525.5% upside for FATE (target: $40) vs -1.2% for TXG (target: $22).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $4.00 | $33.00 | $39.50 | $22.14 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 17 | 31 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 2 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
BLFS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). CERS leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
CERS vs BLFS vs FATE vs TXG: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, BioLife Solutions, Inc.
(BLFS) is the stronger pick with 17. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Analysts rate Cerus Corporation (CERS) a "Buy" — based on 10 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 — CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG?
Over the past 5 years, BioLife Solutions, Inc.
(BLFS) delivered a total return of -27. 0%, compared to -96. 8% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BLFS returned +1221% versus TXG's -57. 5%. 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 — CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), BioLife Solutions, Inc.
(BLFS) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 67β versus 10x Genomics, Inc. 's 2. 32β — meaning TXG is approximately 39% more volatile than BLFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, BioLife Solutions, Inc. (BLFS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 149% for Cerus Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), BioLife Solutions, Inc.
(BLFS) is pulling ahead at 17. 0% versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: 10x Genomics, Inc. grew EPS 77. 0% year-over-year, compared to 25. 5% for Cerus Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, CERS leads at 8. 4% 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 — CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG?
10x Genomics, Inc.
(TXG) is the more profitable company, earning -6. 8% net margin versus -20. 5% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps -6. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BLFS leads at -12. 6% versus -22. 2% for FATE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TXG leads at 69. 1%, 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 CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FATE: 1525.
5% to $39. 50.
07Which pays a better dividend — CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG?
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 CERS or BLFS or FATE or TXG better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, BioLife Solutions, Inc.
(BLFS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+1221% 10Y return). 10x Genomics, Inc. (TXG) carries a higher beta of 2. 32 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (BLFS: +1221%, TXG: -57. 5%), 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 CERS and BLFS and FATE and TXG?
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: CERS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BLFS is a small-cap high-growth stock; FATE is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TXG 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.