Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
EQ vs CABA vs JPM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Banks - Diversified
EQ vs CABA vs JPM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Banks - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $271M | $491M | $875.80B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $0.00 | $280.33B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-19M | $-175M | $57.05B |
| Gross Margin | — | — | 60.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | — | 25.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 14.1x |
| Total Debt | $719K | $27M | $942.38B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $30M | $83M | $343.34B |
EQ vs CABA vs JPM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equillium, Inc. (EQ) | 100 | 95.3 | -4.7% |
| Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (CABA) | 100 | 27.0 | -73.0% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EQ vs CABA vs JPM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
EQ is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.50, Low D/E 2.5%, current ratio 10.32x
- Beta 0.50, current ratio 10.32x
- Beta 0.50 vs CABA's 2.18, lower leverage
CABA plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
JPM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 0.95, yield 1.9%
- Rev growth 3.3%, EPS growth 1.5%
- 454.4% 10Y total return vs CABA's -69.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 3.3% NII/revenue growth vs EQ's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.4% margin vs CABA's 2.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.50 vs CABA's 2.18, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.9% yield; 15-year raise streak; the other 2 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +6.3% vs JPM's +19.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.3% ROA vs CABA's -96.5%, ROIC 4.5% vs -429.6% |
EQ vs CABA vs JPM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
EQ vs CABA vs JPM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
EQ leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM and CABA operate at a comparable scale, with $280.3B and $0 in trailing revenue.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $0 | $280.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$20M | -$178M | $81.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$19M | -$175M | $57.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$19M | -$143M | $100.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | +60.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | — | +25.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | — | +20.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | — | +36.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +77.0% | +46.6% | +16.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — EQ and JPM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $271M | $491M | $875.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $241M | $435M | $1.47T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -7.21x | -1.84x | 15.64x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 14.08x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.20x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 18.11x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | — | 3.13x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 9.03x | 2.75x | 2.42x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 8.68x |
Profitability & Efficiency
JPM leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
JPM delivers a 15.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $-132 for CABA. EQ carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), JPM scores 5/9 vs CABA's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -61.4% | -131.6% | +15.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -53.7% | -96.5% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -88.8% | -4.3% | +4.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -98.1% | -126.2% | +8.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.03x | 0.24x | 2.60x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$30M | -$56M | $599.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $30M | $83M | $343.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $719,000 | $27M | $942.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -73.78x | 0.74x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
EQ leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $20,999 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,516 for CABA. Over the past 12 months, EQ leads with a +628.0% total return vs JPM's +19.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors EQ at 58.2% vs CABA's -37.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +83.7% | +36.2% | -2.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +628.0% | +72.0% | +19.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +295.8% | -75.6% | +133.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -54.2% | -64.8% | +110.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -79.9% | -69.9% | +454.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +58.2% | -37.5% | +32.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — EQ and JPM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
EQ is the less volatile stock with a 0.50 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CABA's 2.18 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. JPM currently trades 93.0% from its 52-week high vs CABA's 71.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.58x | 2.02x | 0.94x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.43 | $4.23 | $337.25 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.27 | $1.26 | $262.71 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +81.9% | +71.2% | +93.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.5 | 36.6 | 54.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 559K | 3.6M | 7.0M |
Analyst Outlook
JPM leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: EQ as "Buy", CABA as "Buy", JPM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 442.5% upside for CABA (target: $16) vs 8.1% for JPM (target: $339). JPM is the only dividend payer here at 1.90% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $6.25 | $16.33 | $338.78 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 12 | 61 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +1.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $5.95 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.9% |
EQ leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). JPM leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Analyst Outlook). 2 tied.
EQ vs CABA vs JPM: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EQ or CABA or JPM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the stronger pick with 3. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Equillium, Inc. (EQ). JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) offers the better valuation at 15. 6x trailing P/E (14. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Equillium, Inc. (EQ) a "Buy" — based on 12 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 — EQ or CABA or JPM?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +110. 0%, compared to -64. 8% for Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (CABA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus EQ's -79. 9%. 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 — EQ or CABA or JPM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Equillium, Inc.
(EQ) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 58β versus Cabaletta Bio, Inc. 's 2. 02β — meaning CABA is approximately 246% more volatile than EQ relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Equillium, Inc. (EQ) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — EQ or CABA or JPM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is pulling ahead at 3. 3% versus -100. 0% for Equillium, Inc. (EQ). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Cabaletta Bio, Inc. grew EPS 29. 9% year-over-year, compared to -69. 6% for Equillium, Inc.. 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 — EQ or CABA or JPM?
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 4% net margin versus 0. 0% for Cabaletta Bio, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: JPM leads at 26. 0% versus 0. 0% for CABA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — JPM leads at 59. 9%, 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 EQ or CABA or JPM more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CABA: 442.
5% to $16. 33.
07Which pays a better dividend — EQ or CABA or JPM?
In this comparison, JPM (1.
9% yield) pays a dividend. EQ, CABA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is EQ or CABA or JPM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 94), 1. 9% yield, +465. 8% 10Y return). Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (CABA) carries a higher beta of 2. 02 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (JPM: +465. 8%, CABA: -69. 9%), 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 EQ and CABA and JPM?
These companies operate in different sectors (EQ (Healthcare) and CABA (Healthcare) and JPM (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: EQ is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CABA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock. JPM pays a dividend while EQ, CABA do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.