Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
FLGC vs DBVT vs ALKS vs TLRY vs CGC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
FLGC vs DBVT vs ALKS vs TLRY vs CGC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic |
| Market Cap | $88M | $919M | $7.50B | $551M | $372M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $14M | $0.00 | $1.56B | $1.17B | $312M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-120M | $-168M | $153M | $-2.95B | $-367M |
| Gross Margin | 43.3% | — | 65.4% | 28.0% | 24.9% |
| Operating Margin | -30.7% | — | 12.3% | -266.0% | -33.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 31.5x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $54M | $22M | $70M | $451M | $325M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $194M | $1.12B | $304M | $509M |
FLGC vs DBVT vs ALKS vs TLRY vs CGC — 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% |
| DBV Technologies S.… (DBVT) | 100 | 35.9 | -64.1% |
| Alkermes plc (ALKS) | 100 | 132.8 | +32.8% |
| Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY) | 100 | 47.2 | -52.8% |
| Canopy Growth Corpo… (CGC) | 100 | 0.4 | -99.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FLGC vs DBVT vs ALKS vs TLRY vs CGC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FLGC lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
DBVT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.12
ALKS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 7.4% 10Y total return vs TLRY's -78.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.88, Low D/E 3.8%, current ratio 3.55x
- Beta 0.88, current ratio 3.55x
- 9.8% margin vs FLGC's -8.3%
TLRY is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +11.3% vs FLGC's -74.3%
CGC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 79.8%, EPS growth 84.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 13.2%
- 79.8% revenue growth vs DBVT's -100.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 79.8% revenue growth vs DBVT's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 9.8% margin vs FLGC's -8.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.88 vs FLGC's 3.12, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +11.3% vs FLGC's -74.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.4% ROA vs FLGC's -192.1%, ROIC 18.9% vs -5.5% |
FLGC vs DBVT vs ALKS vs TLRY vs CGC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FLGC vs DBVT vs ALKS vs TLRY vs CGC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ALKS leads in 3 of 6 categories
TLRY leads 1 • FLGC leads 0 • DBVT leads 0 • CGC leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ALKS leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ALKS and DBVT operate at a comparable scale, with $1.6B and $0 in trailing revenue. ALKS is the more profitable business, keeping 9.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FLGC's -8.3%. On growth, ALKS holds the edge at +28.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $14M | $0 | $1.6B | $1.2B | $312M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$4M | -$112M | $212M | -$3.0B | -$63M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$120M | -$168M | $153M | -$2.9B | -$367M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$9M | -$151M | $392M | -$94M | -$77M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +43.3% | — | +65.4% | +28.0% | +24.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -30.7% | — | +12.3% | -2.7% | -33.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -8.3% | — | +9.8% | -2.5% | -117.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -63.5% | — | +25.1% | -8.1% | -24.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.6% | — | +28.2% | +3.0% | +9.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.6% | +91.5% | -4.1% | +70.7% | +72.0% |
Valuation Metrics
TLRY leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $88M | $919M | $7.5B | $551M | $372M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $87M | $747M | $6.4B | $698M | $243M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -5.55x | -0.59x | 31.46x | -0.14x | -1.55x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 22.94x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.49x | — | 5.08x | 0.49x | 1.09x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 19.61x | 0.51x | 4.17x | 0.21x | 4.18x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 15.61x | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
ALKS leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ALKS delivers a 8.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $-3 for FLGC. ALKS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FLGC's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ALKS scores 7/9 vs FLGC's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -3.3% | -130.2% | +8.8% | -136.5% | -49.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -192.1% | -89.0% | +5.4% | -100.6% | -31.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -5.5% | — | +18.9% | -66.2% | -16.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -6.9% | -145.7% | +14.2% | -78.1% | -15.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.76x | 0.13x | 0.04x | 0.22x | 0.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $48M | -$172M | -$1.0B | $147M | -$183M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $194M | $1.1B | $304M | $509M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $54M | $22M | $70M | $451M | $325M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -18.87x | -189.82x | 32.30x | -89.43x | -5.99x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — ALKS and TLRY each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ALKS five years ago would be worth $18,423 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $25 for FLGC. Over the past 12 months, TLRY leads with a +1134.0% total return vs FLGC's -74.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TLRY at 45.0% vs FLGC's -62.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +5.3% | -18.5% | +59.2% | -51.3% | -18.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -74.3% | +57.7% | +53.4% | +1134.0% | -25.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -94.9% | -24.6% | +38.7% | +205.2% | -84.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -74.4% | +84.2% | -72.0% | -99.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -89.9% | +7.4% | -78.9% | -95.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -62.9% | -9.0% | +11.5% | +45.0% | -45.7% |
Risk & Volatility
ALKS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ALKS is the less volatile stock with a 0.88 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. ALKS currently trades 98.3% 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 | 1.12x | 0.88x | 1.93x | 1.74x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $47.00 | $26.18 | $45.76 | $15.70 | $2.38 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.86 | $8.50 | $25.17 | $0.35 | $0.84 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +15.3% | +59.3% | +98.3% | +30.1% | +40.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.1 | 37.5 | 69.5 | 33.8 | 33.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 11K | 225K | 1.9M | 4.9M | 10.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: DBVT as "Buy", ALKS as "Buy", TLRY as "Hold", CGC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 1396.1% upside for CGC (target: $14) vs 10.0% for ALKS (target: $50).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $46.33 | $49.50 | $10.00 | $14.47 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 15 | 28 | 20 | 26 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
ALKS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). TLRY leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
FLGC vs DBVT vs ALKS vs TLRY vs CGC: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FLGC or DBVT or ALKS or TLRY or CGC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC) is the stronger pick with 79.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -75. 6% for Flora Growth Corp. (FLGC). Alkermes plc (ALKS) offers the better valuation at 31. 5x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate DBV Technologies S. A. (DBVT) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 DBVT or ALKS or TLRY or CGC?
Over the past 5 years, Alkermes plc (ALKS) delivered a total return of +84.
2%, compared to -99. 8% for Flora Growth Corp. (FLGC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ALKS returned +7. 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 DBVT or ALKS or TLRY or CGC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Alkermes plc (ALKS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
88β versus Flora Growth Corp. 's 3. 12β — meaning FLGC is approximately 255% more volatile than ALKS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Alkermes plc (ALKS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 76% for Flora Growth Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — FLGC or DBVT or ALKS or TLRY or CGC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC) is pulling ahead at 79.
8% 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 -651. 7% for Tilray Brands, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CGC leads at 13. 2% 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 DBVT or ALKS or TLRY or CGC?
Alkermes plc (ALKS) is the more profitable company, earning 16.
4% net margin versus -266. 3% for Tilray Brands, Inc. — meaning it keeps 16. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ALKS leads at 17. 2% versus -277. 9% for TLRY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ALKS leads at 86. 7%, 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 DBVT or ALKS or TLRY or CGC?
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 DBVT or ALKS or TLRY or CGC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Alkermes plc (ALKS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
88)). 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 (ALKS: +7. 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 DBVT and ALKS and TLRY and CGC?
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: FLGC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; DBVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ALKS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TLRY is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CGC is a small-cap high-growth 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.