Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FBIO vs XOMA vs RCUS vs ROIV vs MNOV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
FBIO vs XOMA vs RCUS vs ROIV vs MNOV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $67M | $490M | $2.50B | $20.51B | $70M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $62M | $52M | $236M | $13M | $410K |
| Net Income (TTM) | $4M | $29M | $-369M | $-809M | $-12M |
| Gross Margin | 65.8% | 94.3% | 90.7% | 91.2% | 7.6% |
| Operating Margin | -149.2% | 21.8% | -168.6% | -91.3% | -32.4% |
| Forward P/E | 240.0x | 36.7x | — | — | — |
| Total Debt | $76M | $132M | $99M | $100M | $194K |
| Cash & Equiv. | $57M | $83M | $222M | $2.72B | $31M |
FBIO vs XOMA vs RCUS vs ROIV vs MNOV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fortress Biotech, I… (FBIO) | 100 | 5.0 | -95.0% |
| XOMA Royalty Corp. (XOMA) | 100 | 93.6 | -6.4% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 95.5 | -4.5% |
| Roivant Sciences Lt… (ROIV) | 100 | 278.1 | +178.1% |
| MediciNova, Inc. (MNOV) | 100 | 27.2 | -72.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FBIO vs XOMA vs RCUS vs ROIV vs MNOV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FBIO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.97, yield 1.4%
- 1.4% yield, vs XOMA's 0.7%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
XOMA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 83.1%, EPS growth 188.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 105.3%
- 186.7% 10Y total return vs ROIV's 171.9%
- 83.1% revenue growth vs FBIO's -31.8%
- Better valuation composite
RCUS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +209.6% vs MNOV's -4.0%
Among these 5 stocks, ROIV doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MNOV is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.31, Low D/E 0.5%, current ratio 8.16x
- Beta 0.31, current ratio 8.16x
- Beta 0.31 vs RCUS's 1.95, lower leverage
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 83.1% revenue growth vs FBIO's -31.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 56.4% margin vs ROIV's -60.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.31 vs RCUS's 1.95, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.4% yield, vs XOMA's 0.7%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +209.6% vs MNOV's -4.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.1% ROA vs RCUS's -35.3%, ROIC 7.4% vs -64.1% |
FBIO vs XOMA vs RCUS vs ROIV vs MNOV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
FBIO vs XOMA vs RCUS vs ROIV vs MNOV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
XOMA leads in 2 of 6 categories
ROIV leads 1 • FBIO leads 0 • RCUS leads 0 • MNOV leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
XOMA leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RCUS is the larger business by revenue, generating $236M annually — 576.1x MNOV's $409,657. XOMA is the more profitable business, keeping 56.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ROIV's -60.8%. On growth, XOMA holds the edge at +57.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $62M | $52M | $236M | $13M | $409,657 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$88M | $14M | -$391M | -$1.2B | -$13M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $4M | $29M | -$369M | -$809M | -$12M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$66M | $3M | -$489M | -$767M | -$10M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +65.8% | +94.3% | +90.7% | +91.2% | +7.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -149.2% | +21.8% | -168.6% | -91.3% | -32.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.4% | +56.4% | -156.4% | -60.8% | -29.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -106.2% | +5.4% | -2.1% | -57.6% | -23.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +20.5% | +57.9% | -39.3% | -77.8% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +114.5% | +157.8% | +10.5% | -2.7% | +4.7% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — FBIO and XOMA and ROIV and MNOV each lead in 1 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $67M | $490M | $2.5B | $20.5B | $70M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $86M | $538M | $2.4B | $17.9B | $40M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.89x | 28.28x | -7.54x | -117.83x | -5.96x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 240.00x | 36.74x | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.12x | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 37.50x | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.16x | 9.39x | 10.11x | 706.10x | 171.21x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 8.85x | 4.22x | 3.95x | 1.69x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 170.55x | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
XOMA leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
XOMA delivers a 31.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $32 in annual profit, vs $-69 for RCUS. MNOV carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to XOMA's 1.57x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), XOMA scores 5/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.1% | +31.9% | -69.0% | -16.3% | -28.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.2% | +12.1% | -35.3% | -15.5% | -26.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -6.3% | +7.4% | -64.1% | -50.4% | -85.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -142.0% | +5.2% | -42.1% | -16.4% | -28.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.57x | 0.16x | 0.02x | 0.00x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $19M | $49M | -$123M | -$2.6B | -$31M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $57M | $83M | $222M | $2.7B | $31M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $76M | $132M | $99M | $100M | $194,331 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -4.25x | 2.90x | -13.38x | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ROIV leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ROIV five years ago would be worth $28,537 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $406 for FBIO. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +209.6% total return vs MNOV's -4.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ROIV at 46.7% vs FBIO's -40.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -40.4% | +47.5% | +6.5% | +29.0% | +7.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +39.5% | +68.7% | +209.6% | +153.2% | -4.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -78.4% | +126.1% | +24.9% | +215.6% | -34.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.9% | +30.0% | -18.6% | +185.4% | -65.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -94.8% | +186.7% | +45.9% | +171.9% | -80.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -40.0% | +31.3% | +7.7% | +46.7% | -13.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — XOMA and MNOV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MNOV is the less volatile stock with a 0.31 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RCUS's 1.95 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. XOMA currently trades 96.4% from its 52-week high vs FBIO's 53.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.97x | 1.21x | 1.95x | 0.95x | 0.31x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.53 | $42.81 | $28.72 | $30.33 | $1.96 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.60 | $22.29 | $7.06 | $10.58 | $1.17 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +53.0% | +96.4% | +86.3% | +93.2% | +73.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 54.7 | 71.1 | 60.5 | 54.8 | 55.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 407K | 242K | 1.2M | 4.8M | 47K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FBIO and ROIV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FBIO as "Buy", XOMA as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy", ROIV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 30.2% upside for XOMA (target: $54) vs 17.4% for ROIV (target: $33). For income investors, FBIO offers the higher dividend yield at 1.39% vs XOMA's 0.74%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $53.75 | $30.00 | $33.20 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 10 | 18 | 14 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.4% | +0.7% | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.03 | $0.30 | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +3.3% | 0.0% | +6.3% | 0.0% |
XOMA leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ROIV leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
FBIO vs XOMA vs RCUS vs ROIV vs MNOV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, XOMA Royalty Corp.
(XOMA) is the stronger pick with 83. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -31. 8% for Fortress Biotech, Inc. (FBIO). XOMA Royalty Corp. (XOMA) offers the better valuation at 28. 3x trailing P/E (36. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fortress Biotech, Inc. (FBIO) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 has the better valuation — FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV?
On forward P/E, XOMA Royalty Corp.
is actually cheaper at 36. 7x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV?
Over the past 5 years, Roivant Sciences Ltd.
(ROIV) delivered a total return of +185. 4%, compared to -95. 9% for Fortress Biotech, Inc. (FBIO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: XOMA returned +186. 7% versus FBIO's -94. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), MediciNova, Inc.
(MNOV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 31β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 95β — meaning RCUS is approximately 531% more volatile than MNOV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, MediciNova, Inc. (MNOV) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 157% for XOMA Royalty Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), XOMA Royalty Corp.
(XOMA) is pulling ahead at 83. 1% versus -31. 8% for Fortress Biotech, Inc. (FBIO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: XOMA Royalty Corp. grew EPS 188. 5% year-over-year, compared to -104. 6% for Roivant Sciences Ltd.. Over a 3-year CAGR, XOMA leads at 105. 3% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV?
XOMA Royalty Corp.
(XOMA) is the more profitable company, earning 60. 8% net margin versus -29. 3% for MediciNova, Inc. — meaning it keeps 60. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: XOMA leads at 21. 8% versus -34. 5% for ROIV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ROIV leads at 96. 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.
07Is FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, XOMA Royalty Corp.
(XOMA) trades at 36. 7x forward P/E versus 240. 0x for Fortress Biotech, Inc. — 203. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for XOMA: 30. 2% to $53. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV?
In this comparison, FBIO (1.
4% yield), XOMA (0. 7% yield) pay a dividend. RCUS, ROIV, MNOV do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FBIO or XOMA or RCUS or ROIV or MNOV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, MediciNova, Inc.
(MNOV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 31)). Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS) carries a higher beta of 1. 95 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MNOV: -80. 1%, RCUS: +45. 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.
10What are the main differences between FBIO and XOMA and RCUS and ROIV and MNOV?
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: FBIO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; XOMA is a small-cap high-growth stock; RCUS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ROIV is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MNOV is a small-cap quality compounder stock. FBIO, XOMA pay a dividend while RCUS, ROIV, MNOV 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.
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.