Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
FLGC vs ACB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
FLGC vs ACB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic |
| Market Cap | $88M | $181M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $14M | $311M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-120M | $-75M |
| Gross Margin | 43.3% | 56.6% |
| Operating Margin | -30.7% | 0.3% |
| Total Debt | $54M | $24M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $113M |
FLGC vs ACB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 21 | Mar 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flora Growth Corp. (FLGC) | 100 | 0.2 | -99.8% |
| Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB) | 100 | 4.0 | -96.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FLGC vs ACB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
In this particular matchup, FLGC is outpaced on most metrics by others in the set.
ACB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.64
- Rev growth -6.4%, EPS growth -76.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.8%
- -93.4% 10Y total return vs FLGC's -99.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -6.4% revenue growth vs FLGC's -75.6% | |
| Quality / Margins | -24.1% margin vs FLGC's -8.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.64 vs FLGC's 3.12, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither stock pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | -37.4% vs FLGC's -74.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -10.1% ROA vs FLGC's -192.1%, ROIC -25.8% vs -5.5% |
FLGC vs ACB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FLGC vs ACB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ACB leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ACB is the larger business by revenue, generating $311M annually — 21.4x FLGC's $14M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -24.1% (ACB) to -8.3% (FLGC). On growth, ACB holds the edge at -57.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $14M | $311M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$4M | $14M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$120M | -$75M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$9M | -$36M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +43.3% | +56.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -30.7% | +0.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -8.3% | -24.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -63.5% | -11.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.6% | -57.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.6% | -125.0% |
Valuation Metrics
ACB leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $88M | $181M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $87M | $118M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -5.55x | -1.92x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.49x | 0.80x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 19.61x | 0.46x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
ACB leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ACB delivers a -13.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-13 in annual profit, vs $-3 for FLGC. ACB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FLGC's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ACB scores 4/9 vs FLGC's 3/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -3.3% | -13.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -192.1% | -10.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -5.5% | -25.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -6.9% | -25.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.76x | 0.05x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $48M | -$89M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $113M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $54M | $24M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -18.87x | -1.30x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ACB leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ACB five years ago would be worth $336 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $25 for FLGC. Over the past 12 months, ACB leads with a -37.4% total return vs FLGC's -74.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ACB at -19.4% vs FLGC's -62.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +5.3% | -32.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -74.3% | -37.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -94.9% | -47.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -96.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -93.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -62.9% | -19.4% |
Risk & Volatility
ACB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ACB is the less volatile stock with a 1.64 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FLGC's 3.12 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ACB currently trades 43.9% from its 52-week high vs FLGC's 15.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.12x | 1.64x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $47.00 | $6.67 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.86 | $2.73 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +15.3% | +43.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.1 | 31.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 11K | 1.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $5.92 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 14 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% |
ACB leads in 5 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Valuation Metrics.
FLGC vs ACB: Frequently Asked Questions
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FLGC or ACB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Aurora Cannabis Inc.
(ACB) is the stronger pick with -6. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -75. 6% for Flora Growth Corp. (FLGC). Analysts rate Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB) a "Hold" — based on 14 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 — FLGC or ACB?
Over the past 5 years, Aurora Cannabis Inc.
(ACB) delivered a total return of -96. 6%, compared to -99. 8% for Flora Growth Corp. (FLGC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ACB returned -93. 4% versus FLGC'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 — FLGC or ACB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Aurora Cannabis Inc.
(ACB) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 64β versus Flora Growth Corp. 's 3. 12β — meaning FLGC is approximately 90% more volatile than ACB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Aurora Cannabis Inc. (ACB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 76% for Flora Growth Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — FLGC or ACB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Aurora Cannabis Inc.
(ACB) is pulling ahead at -6. 4% versus -75. 6% for Flora Growth Corp. (FLGC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Flora Growth Corp. grew EPS 100. 0% year-over-year, compared to -76. 4% for Aurora Cannabis Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACB leads at 12. 8% 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 — FLGC or ACB?
Flora Growth Corp.
(FLGC) is the more profitable company, earning -30. 5% net margin versus -38. 0% for Aurora Cannabis Inc. — meaning it keeps -30. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FLGC leads at -30. 7% versus -50. 8% for ACB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FLGC leads at 43. 3%, 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 — FLGC or ACB?
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 FLGC or ACB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Aurora Cannabis Inc.
(ACB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. Flora Growth Corp. (FLGC) carries a higher beta of 3. 12 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ACB: -93. 4%, FLGC: -99. 8%), 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 FLGC and ACB?
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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.