Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
FBLG vs FATE vs CRSP vs NKTR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
FBLG vs FATE vs CRSP vs NKTR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $3M | $280M | $5.06B | $1.69B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $7M | $4M | $55M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-19M | $-136M | $-569M | $-164M |
| Gross Margin | — | — | -41.7% | 99.6% |
| Operating Margin | — | -22.2% | -134.1% | -237.9% |
| Total Debt | $2M | $78M | $395M | $149M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $5M | $47M | $355M | $15M |
FBLG vs FATE vs CRSP vs NKTR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jan 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| FibroBiologics, Inc… (FBLG) | 100 | 0.2 | -99.8% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 38.8 | -61.2% |
| CRISPR Therapeutics… (CRSP) | 100 | 87.1 | -12.9% |
| Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) | 100 | 1007.3 | +907.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FBLG vs FATE vs CRSP vs NKTR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FBLG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- beta 0.71
- 0.4% margin vs CRSP's -138.6%
- Beta 0.71 vs FATE's 2.17
FATE lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
CRSP is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 272.0% 10Y total return vs FATE's 40.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.93, Low D/E 20.5%, current ratio 13.32x
- Beta 1.93, current ratio 13.32x
- -24.5% ROA vs FBLG's -170.7%, ROIC -22.3% vs -8.4%
NKTR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth -43.9%, EPS growth -12.1%, 3Y rev CAGR -15.7%
- -43.9% revenue growth vs CRSP's -90.0%
- +8.2% vs FBLG's -93.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -43.9% revenue growth vs CRSP's -90.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 0.4% margin vs CRSP's -138.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.71 vs FATE's 2.17 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +8.2% vs FBLG's -93.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -24.5% ROA vs FBLG's -170.7%, ROIC -22.3% vs -8.4% |
FBLG vs FATE vs CRSP vs NKTR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FBLG vs FATE vs CRSP vs NKTR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NKTR leads in 3 of 6 categories
CRSP leads 1 • FBLG leads 0 • FATE leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NKTR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NKTR and FBLG operate at a comparable scale, with $55M and $0 in trailing revenue. NKTR is the more profitable business, keeping -3.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CRSP's -138.6%. On growth, CRSP holds the edge at +68.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $7M | $4M | $55M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$16M | -$148M | -$535M | -$130M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$19M | -$136M | -$569M | -$164M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$17M | -$88M | -$401M | -$209M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | -41.7% | +99.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -22.2% | -134.1% | -2.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -20.5% | -138.6% | -3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -13.2% | -97.8% | -3.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -26.4% | +68.6% | -25.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +45.0% | +38.6% | +19.0% | -4.5% |
Valuation Metrics
NKTR leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3M | $280M | $5.1B | $1.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $115,005 | $312M | $5.1B | $1.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.15x | -2.11x | -8.10x | -8.57x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 42.18x | 1440.41x | 30.64x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.45x | 1.39x | 2.45x | 15.66x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CRSP leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CRSP delivers a -30.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-31 in annual profit, vs $-8 for FBLG. CRSP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.21x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NKTR's 1.66x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FBLG scores 3/9 vs CRSP's 1/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -7.9% | -65.8% | -30.9% | -4.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -170.7% | -42.7% | -24.5% | -62.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -8.4% | -36.5% | -22.3% | -57.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -2.9% | -43.1% | -26.6% | -55.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.39x | 0.38x | 0.21x | 1.66x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$2M | $31M | $40M | $134M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $5M | $47M | $355M | $15M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2M | $78M | $395M | $149M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -90.40x | — | — | -4.74x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NKTR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CRSP five years ago would be worth $4,867 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $21 for FBLG. Over the past 12 months, NKTR leads with a +818.2% total return vs FBLG's -93.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NKTR at 93.3% vs FBLG's -87.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -74.2% | +145.5% | -2.5% | +92.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -93.1% | +143.0% | +53.1% | +818.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -55.4% | -6.3% | +621.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -96.8% | -51.3% | -72.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | +40.5% | +272.0% | -59.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -87.1% | -23.6% | -2.2% | +93.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FBLG and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FBLG is the less volatile stock with a 0.71 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FATE's 2.17 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 FBLG's 5.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.64x | 1.99x | 1.87x | 1.80x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $22.60 | $2.46 | $78.48 | $109.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.35 | $0.91 | $33.50 | $7.99 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +5.5% | +98.6% | +66.8% | +76.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 26.1 | 81.0 | 55.5 | 53.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 960K | 1.9M | 2.0M | 991K |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FBLG as "Buy", FATE as "Buy", CRSP as "Buy", NKTR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 14416.1% upside for FBLG (target: $180) vs 20.2% for CRSP (target: $63).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $180.00 | $39.50 | $63.00 | $147.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 31 | 38 | 33 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
NKTR leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CRSP leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
FBLG vs FATE vs CRSP vs NKTR: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FBLG or FATE or CRSP or NKTR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) is the stronger pick with -43.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -90. 0% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP). Analysts rate FibroBiologics, Inc. Common Stock (FBLG) a "Buy" — based on 3 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 — FBLG or FATE or CRSP or NKTR?
Over the past 5 years, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) delivered a total return of -51.
3%, compared to -99. 8% for FibroBiologics, Inc. Common Stock (FBLG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CRSP returned +289. 1% versus FBLG's -99. 8%. 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 — FBLG or FATE or CRSP or NKTR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), FibroBiologics, Inc.
Common Stock (FBLG) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 64β versus Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 's 1. 99β — meaning FATE is approximately 213% more volatile than FBLG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 21% versus 166% for Nektar Therapeutics — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — FBLG or FATE or CRSP or NKTR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) is pulling ahead at -43.
9% versus -90. 0% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CRSP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fate Therapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 29. 9% year-over-year, compared to -49. 1% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG. Over a 3-year CAGR, CRSP leads at 100. 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 — FBLG or FATE or CRSP or NKTR?
FibroBiologics, Inc.
Common Stock (FBLG) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -165. 7% for CRISPR Therapeutics AG — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FBLG leads at 0. 0% versus -161. 9% for CRSP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NKTR leads at 100. 0%, 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — FBLG or FATE or CRSP or NKTR?
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.
07Is FBLG or FATE or CRSP or NKTR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, FibroBiologics, Inc.
Common Stock (FBLG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 64)). Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE) carries a higher beta of 1. 99 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FBLG: -99. 8%, FATE: +38. 2%), 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 FBLG and FATE and CRSP and NKTR?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
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.