Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
FBRX vs TARS vs PRAX vs NUVL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
FBRX vs TARS vs PRAX vs NUVL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $76M | $2.72B | $9.63B | $7.53B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $535M | $-92K | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-52M | $-48M | $-327M | $-450M |
| Gross Margin | — | 90.4% | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | -9.5% | — | — |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $94M | $110K | $0.00 |
| Cash & Equiv. | $22M | $184M | $357M | $262M |
FBRX vs TARS vs PRAX vs NUVL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forte Biosciences, … (FBRX) | 100 | 3.2 | -96.8% |
| Tarsus Pharmaceutic… (TARS) | 100 | 271.2 | +171.2% |
| Praxis Precision Me… (PRAX) | 100 | 141.0 | +41.0% |
| Nuvalent, Inc. (NUVL) | 100 | 576.9 | +476.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FBRX vs TARS vs PRAX vs NUVL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FBRX lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
TARS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- beta 0.65
- Rev growth 146.7%, EPS growth 48.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 159.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.65, Low D/E 27.3%, current ratio 3.85x
- 146.7% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0%
PRAX is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +7.7% vs TARS's +35.1%
NUVL is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and defensive.
- 446.1% 10Y total return vs TARS's 210.8%
- Beta 1.09, current ratio 15.27x
- 3.2% margin vs TARS's -9.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 146.7% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.2% margin vs TARS's -9.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.65 vs FBRX's 1.57 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +7.7% vs TARS's +35.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -8.9% ROA vs FBRX's -53.3%, ROIC -23.4% vs -102.5% |
FBRX vs TARS vs PRAX vs NUVL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
FBRX vs TARS vs PRAX vs NUVL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FBRX leads in 1 of 6 categories
TARS leads 1 • PRAX leads 1 • NUVL leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FBRX leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TARS and PRAX operate at a comparable scale, with $535M and -$92,000 in trailing revenue.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $535M | -$92,000 | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$53M | -$49M | -$357M | -$346M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$52M | -$48M | -$327M | -$450M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$45M | -$32M | -$283M | -$313M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +90.4% | — | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -9.5% | — | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -9.0% | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -5.9% | — | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +106.9% | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +78.2% | +75.0% | +2.7% | -17.8% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — FBRX and TARS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $76M | $2.7B | $9.6B | $7.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $54M | $2.6B | $9.3B | $7.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.15x | -40.23x | -24.72x | -17.50x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 6.03x | — | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.45x | 7.78x | 8.54x | 5.96x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
TARS leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
TARS delivers a -14.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-14 in annual profit, vs $-62 for FBRX. PRAX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TARS's 0.27x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TARS scores 5/9 vs NUVL's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -61.5% | -14.2% | -43.0% | -42.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -53.3% | -8.9% | -40.2% | -37.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -102.5% | -23.4% | -65.0% | -32.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -83.4% | -19.6% | -49.3% | -34.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.27x | 0.00x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$22M | -$90M | -$357M | -$262M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $22M | $184M | $357M | $262M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $94M | $110,000 | $0 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -18.76x | — | -26.85x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PRAX leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NUVL five years ago would be worth $54,613 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $321 for FBRX. Over the past 12 months, PRAX leads with a +775.0% total return vs TARS's +35.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PRAX at 174.9% vs FBRX's -0.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +10.8% | -20.8% | +16.4% | +1.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +322.8% | +35.1% | +775.0% | +53.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -1.2% | +310.3% | +1976.5% | +171.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.8% | +113.3% | -20.8% | +446.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.4% | +210.8% | -20.1% | +446.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -0.4% | +60.1% | +174.9% | +39.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TARS and PRAX each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TARS is the less volatile stock with a 0.65 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FBRX's 1.57 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PRAX currently trades 93.6% from its 52-week high vs FBRX's 73.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.47x | 0.66x | 1.40x | 1.01x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $35.80 | $85.25 | $356.00 | $113.02 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.13 | $38.51 | $35.18 | $63.56 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +73.1% | +75.0% | +93.6% | +90.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 44.0 | 46.5 | 55.6 | 52.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 273K | 495K | 378K | 544K |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FBRX as "Buy", TARS as "Buy", PRAX as "Buy", NUVL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 148.4% upside for FBRX (target: $65) vs 39.7% for TARS (target: $89).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $65.00 | $89.33 | $548.80 | $144.40 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 9 | 16 | 14 |
| 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% |
FBRX leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). TARS leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
FBRX vs TARS vs PRAX vs NUVL: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FBRX or TARS or PRAX or NUVL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(TARS) is the stronger pick with 146. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). Analysts rate Forte Biosciences, Inc. (FBRX) 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 is the better long-term investment — FBRX or TARS or PRAX or NUVL?
Over the past 5 years, Nuvalent, Inc.
(NUVL) delivered a total return of +446. 1%, compared to -96. 8% for Forte Biosciences, Inc. (FBRX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NUVL returned +461. 5% versus FBRX's -99. 5%. 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 — FBRX or TARS or PRAX or NUVL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(TARS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 66β versus Forte Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 47β — meaning FBRX is approximately 121% more volatile than TARS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 27% for Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — FBRX or TARS or PRAX or NUVL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(TARS) is pulling ahead at 146. 7% versus -100. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Forte Biosciences, Inc. grew EPS 51. 2% year-over-year, compared to -48. 9% for Nuvalent, 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 — FBRX or TARS or PRAX or NUVL?
Forte Biosciences, Inc.
(FBRX) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -14. 7% for Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FBRX leads at 0. 0% versus -15. 7% for TARS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TARS leads at 93. 2%, 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 — FBRX or TARS or PRAX or NUVL?
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 FBRX or TARS or PRAX or NUVL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(TARS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 66), +197. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (TARS: +197. 4%, FBRX: -99. 5%), 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 FBRX and TARS and PRAX and NUVL?
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: FBRX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TARS is a small-cap high-growth stock; PRAX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NUVL is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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.