ELAB vs GAME

For growth investors, GameSquare Holdings, Inc.

(GAME) is the stronger pick with 132. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 44. 1% for PMGC Holdings Inc. (ELAB). 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.

Over the past 5 years, GameSquare Holdings, Inc.

(GAME) delivered a total return of -98. 7%, compared to -100. 0% for PMGC Holdings Inc. (ELAB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GAME returned -100. 0% versus ELAB'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.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), GameSquare Holdings, Inc.

(GAME) is the lower-risk stock at 2. 37β versus PMGC Holdings Inc. 's 3. 94β — meaning ELAB is approximately 66% more volatile than GAME relative to the S&P 500.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), GameSquare Holdings, Inc.

(GAME) is pulling ahead at 132. 9% versus 44. 1% for PMGC Holdings Inc. (ELAB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: PMGC Holdings Inc. grew EPS 86. 0% year-over-year, compared to 37. 7% for GameSquare Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ELAB leads at 1340% 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.

GameSquare Holdings, Inc.

(GAME) is the more profitable company, earning -50. 7% net margin versus -253. 1% for PMGC Holdings Inc. — meaning it keeps -50. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GAME leads at -48. 0% versus -75. 7% for ELAB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ELAB leads at 72. 8%, 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.

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.

For long-horizon retirement investors, GameSquare Holdings, Inc.

(GAME) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. PMGC Holdings Inc. (ELAB) carries a higher beta of 3. 94 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GAME: -100. 0%, ELAB: -100. 0%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (ELAB (Healthcare) and GAME (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.