Comprehensive Stock Comparison
Compare Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) vs Apple Inc. (AAPL) Stock
Analyze side-by-side fundamentals, valuation, growth, and profitability to decide which stock is the better buy.
Selected Stocks
Add up to 10 tickers. Use presets or search to get started.
Quick Verdict
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | AAPL | 6.4% revenue growth vs DNA's -25.1% |
| Quality / Margins | AAPL | 27.0% net margin vs DNA's -183.8% |
| Stability / Safety | AAPL | Beta 1.28 vs DNA's 1.98 |
| Dividends | AAPL | 0.4% yield; 14-year raise streak; DNA pays no meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | AAPL | +9.7% vs DNA's -18.1% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | AAPL | 31.1% ROA vs DNA's -27.9%, ROIC 64.5% vs -34.3% |
Who Each Stock Is For
Income & stability
Growth exposure
Long-term compounding (10Y)
Sleep-well-at-night portfolio
Defensive / Recession hedge
Business Model
What each company does and how it makes money
Ginkgo Bioworks operates a cell programming platform that designs custom microorganisms for industrial applications like therapeutics, food ingredients, and chemicals. It generates revenue primarily through platform access fees and milestone payments from biotech partners — with additional income from equity stakes in spin-out ventures. Its competitive advantage lies in its massive automated foundry infrastructure and proprietary AI-driven design software, which creates significant scale and efficiency advantages in synthetic biology.
Apple is a technology giant that designs and sells premium consumer electronics — most famously the iPhone — along with related software and services. It generates revenue primarily from hardware sales (roughly 80% of total) and a fast-growing services segment (around 20%) that includes the App Store, subscriptions, and licensing. Its key competitive advantage is a powerful ecosystem that locks users into its hardware, software, and services through seamless integration and high switching costs.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Financial Metrics Comparison
Side-by-side fundamentals across 2 stocks. BestLagging
Financial Scorecard
AAPL leads in 4 of 6 categories (Financial Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). DNA leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics).
Financial Metrics (TTM)
AAPL is the larger business by revenue, generating $435.6B annually — 2560.1x DNA's $170M. AAPL is the more profitable business, keeping 27.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to DNA's -183.8%. On growth, AAPL holds the edge at +15.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | DNAGinkgo Bioworks H… | AAPLApple Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $170M | $435.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$223M | $152.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$313M | $117.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$194M | $123.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +81.5% | +47.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -185.3% | +32.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -183.8% | +27.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -114.0% | +28.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -23.8% | +15.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +30.9% | +18.3% |
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | DNAGinkgo Bioworks H… | AAPLApple Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $328M | $3.88T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $577M | $3.97T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.20x | 35.41x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 31.15x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.98x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 27.45x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.92x | 9.33x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.74x | 53.76x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 39.33x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AAPL delivers a 133.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $134 in annual profit, vs $-61 for DNA. DNA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.82x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AAPL's 1.67x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AAPL scores 7/9 vs DNA's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | DNAGinkgo Bioworks H… | AAPLApple Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -61.5% | +133.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -27.9% | +31.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -34.3% | +64.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -27.5% | +69.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.82x | 1.67x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $250M | $89.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $167M | $33.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $417M | $123.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — |
Total Returns (with DRIP)
A $10,000 investment in AAPL five years ago would be worth $21,049 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $167 for DNA. Over the past 12 months, AAPL leads with a +9.7% total return vs DNA's -18.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AAPL at 21.9% vs DNA's -51.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | DNAGinkgo Bioworks H… | AAPLApple Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -22.4% | -2.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -18.1% | +9.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -88.5% | +81.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.3% | +110.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.3% | +1027.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -51.4% | +21.9% |
Risk & Volatility
AAPL is the less volatile stock with a 1.28 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than DNA's 1.98 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AAPL currently trades 91.5% from its 52-week high vs DNA's 38.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | DNAGinkgo Bioworks H… | AAPLApple Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.98x | 1.28x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $17.58 | $288.61 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.00 | $169.21 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +38.4% | +91.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 54.4 | 57.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 848K | 40.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates DNA as "Buy" and AAPL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 16.1% upside for DNA (target: $8) vs 14.7% for AAPL (target: $303). AAPL is the only dividend payer here at 0.39% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | DNAGinkgo Bioworks H… | AAPLApple Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.84 | $303.11 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 109 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 14 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +2.3% |
Historical Charts
Charts are rendered on first load. Hover for details.
Chart 1Total Return — 5 Years (Rebased to 100)
| Stock | Apr 21 | Feb 26 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ginkgo Bioworks Hol… (DNA) | 100 | 2.26 | -97.7% |
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | 100 | 203.72 | +103.7% |
Apple Inc. (AAPL) returned +110% over 5 years vs Ginkgo Bioworks Hol… (DNA)'s -98%. A $10,000 investment in AAPL 5 years ago would be worth $21,049 today (including dividends reinvested).
Chart 2Revenue Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2016 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ginkgo Bioworks Hol… (DNA) | $54M | $170M | +214.0% |
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | $215.6B | $416.2B | +93.0% |
Apple Inc.'s revenue grew from $215.6B (2016) to $416.2B (2025) — a 7.6% CAGR.
Chart 3Net Margin Trend — 10 Years
| Stock | 2016 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ginkgo Bioworks Hol… (DNA) | -2.2% | -183.8% | -8246.5% |
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | 21.2% | 26.9% | +27.0% |
Apple Inc.'s net margin went from 21% (2016) to 27% (2025).
Chart 4P/E Ratio History — 9 Years
| Stock | 2017 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | 18.4 | 36.4 | +97.8% |
Apple Inc. has traded in a 13x–41x P/E range over 9 years; current trailing P/E is ~35x.
Chart 5EPS Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2016 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ginkgo Bioworks Hol… (DNA) | -4.15 | -5.64 | -35.9% |
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | 2.08 | 7.46 | +258.7% |
Apple Inc.'s EPS grew from $2.08 (2016) to $7.46 (2025) — a 15% CAGR.
Chart 6Free Cash Flow — 5 Years
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. generated $-179M FCF in 2025 (+42% vs 2021). Apple Inc. generated $99B FCF in 2025 (+6% vs 2021).
DNA vs AAPL: Frequently Asked Questions
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is DNA or AAPL a better buy right now?
Apple Inc. (AAPL) offers the better valuation at 35.4x trailing P/E (31.1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — DNA or AAPL?
Over the past 5 years, Apple Inc. (AAPL) delivered a total return of +110.5%, compared to -98.3% for Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA). A $10,000 investment in AAPL five years ago would be worth approximately $21K today (assuming dividends reinvested). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AAPL returned +1027% versus DNA's -98.3%. 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 — DNA or AAPL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Apple Inc. (AAPL) is the lower-risk stock at 1.28β versus Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.'s 1.98β — meaning DNA is approximately 55% more volatile than AAPL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 82% versus 167% for Apple Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which has better profit margins — DNA or AAPL?
Apple Inc. (AAPL) is the more profitable company, earning 26.9% net margin versus -183.8% for Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 26.9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AAPL leads at 32.0% versus -185.3% for DNA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — DNA leads at 81.5%, 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.
05Is DNA or AAPL more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for DNA: 16.1% to $7.84.
06Which pays a better dividend — DNA or AAPL?
In this comparison, AAPL (0.4% yield) pays a dividend. DNA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is DNA or AAPL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Apple Inc. (AAPL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.28), +1027% 10Y return). Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) carries a higher beta of 1.98 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (AAPL: +1027%, DNA: -98.3%), 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 DNA and AAPL?
These companies operate in different sectors (DNA (Healthcare) and AAPL (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced. 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 beat both.