Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FULC vs ARWR vs SRPT vs NTLA vs BEAM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
FULC vs ARWR vs SRPT vs NTLA vs BEAM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $372M | $10.92B | $2.18B | $1.62B | $3.23B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $622M | $2.18B | $68M | $132M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-76M | $-301M | $65M | $-413M | $-65M |
| Gross Margin | — | 85.1% | 34.4% | -25.6% | -64.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | -35.7% | -1.9% | -6.5% | -281.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 6.9x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $6M | $366M | $1.04B | $93M | $294M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $198M | $227M | $801M | $155M | $295M |
FULC vs ARWR vs SRPT vs NTLA vs BEAM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fulcrum Therapeutic… (FULC) | 100 | 34.6 | -65.4% |
| Arrowhead Pharmaceu… (ARWR) | 100 | 241.8 | +141.8% |
| Sarepta Therapeutic… (SRPT) | 100 | 13.7 | -86.3% |
| Intellia Therapeuti… (NTLA) | 100 | 78.3 | -21.7% |
| Beam Therapeutics I… (BEAM) | 100 | 123.2 | +23.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FULC vs ARWR vs SRPT vs NTLA vs BEAM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FULC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- beta 1.40
- Lower volatility, beta 1.40, Low D/E 1.8%, current ratio 27.40x
- Beta 1.40, current ratio 27.40x
- Beta 1.40 vs NTLA's 2.37, lower leverage
ARWR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 232.6%, EPS growth 99.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 50.5%
- 12.5% 10Y total return vs BEAM's 67.8%
- 232.6% revenue growth vs FULC's -100.0%
- +496.9% vs SRPT's -43.4%
SRPT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 3.0% margin vs NTLA's -6.1%
- 1.9% ROA vs NTLA's -45.2%, ROIC -31.4% vs -44.0%
NTLA lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, BEAM doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 232.6% revenue growth vs FULC's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.0% margin vs NTLA's -6.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.40 vs NTLA's 2.37, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +496.9% vs SRPT's -43.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.9% ROA vs NTLA's -45.2%, ROIC -31.4% vs -44.0% |
FULC vs ARWR vs SRPT vs NTLA vs BEAM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SRPT leads in 1 of 6 categories
ARWR leads 1 • FULC leads 0 • NTLA leads 0 • BEAM leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SRPT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SRPT and FULC operate at a comparable scale, with $2.2B and $0 in trailing revenue. SRPT is the more profitable business, keeping 3.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NTLA's -6.1%. On growth, NTLA holds the edge at +78.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $622M | $2.2B | $68M | $132M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$86M | -$203M | -$6M | -$431M | -$355M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$76M | -$301M | $65M | -$413M | -$65M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$64M | -$51M | $107M | -$396M | -$384M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +85.1% | +34.4% | -25.6% | -64.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -35.7% | -1.9% | -6.5% | -2.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -48.4% | +3.0% | -6.1% | -49.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -8.2% | +4.9% | -5.8% | -2.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -86.4% | -1.9% | +78.8% | -100.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +10.7% | -133.8% | +162.6% | +34.6% | +26.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — FULC and ARWR and SRPT each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $372M | $10.9B | $2.2B | $1.6B | $3.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $181M | $11.1B | $2.4B | $1.6B | $3.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -5.83x | -6389.34x | -2.92x | -3.60x | -38.85x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 6.93x | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 90.41x | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 13.16x | 0.99x | 23.93x | 23.14x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.25x | 20.71x | 1.91x | 2.21x | 2.51x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 69.58x | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — FULC and ARWR each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SRPT delivers a 4.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $5 in annual profit, vs $-57 for NTLA. FULC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SRPT's 0.91x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ARWR scores 6/9 vs FULC's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -27.8% | -55.5% | +4.9% | -56.6% | -5.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -26.3% | -18.1% | +1.9% | -45.2% | -4.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -36.2% | +9.3% | -31.4% | -44.0% | -31.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -28.1% | +8.8% | -24.0% | -48.5% | -33.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.02x | 0.73x | 0.91x | 0.14x | 0.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$191M | $140M | $238M | -$62M | -$1M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $198M | $227M | $801M | $155M | $295M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $6M | $366M | $1.0B | $93M | $294M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -1.03x | -14.00x | — | 1.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ARWR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ARWR five years ago would be worth $11,743 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,024 for NTLA. Over the past 12 months, ARWR leads with a +496.9% total return vs SRPT's -43.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FULC at 30.7% vs SRPT's -45.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -37.0% | +15.0% | -2.4% | +48.9% | +16.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +35.7% | +496.9% | -43.4% | +88.1% | +93.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +123.4% | +92.7% | -83.6% | -68.3% | -5.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -34.4% | +17.4% | -72.1% | -79.8% | -55.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -49.0% | +1253.3% | +18.0% | -42.9% | +67.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +30.7% | +24.4% | -45.3% | -31.8% | -1.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FULC and ARWR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FULC is the less volatile stock with a 1.40 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NTLA's 2.37 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ARWR currently trades 98.1% from its 52-week high vs FULC's 43.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.40x | 1.81x | 2.02x | 2.37x | 2.14x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $15.74 | $79.48 | $44.14 | $28.25 | $36.44 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.78 | $12.44 | $10.42 | $6.83 | $15.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +43.7% | +98.1% | +47.1% | +48.5% | +86.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 42.0 | 69.7 | 63.4 | 50.4 | 60.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 990K | 1.9M | 3.0M | 5.3M | 2.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FULC as "Buy", ARWR as "Buy", SRPT as "Buy", NTLA as "Buy", BEAM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 200.4% upside for FULC (target: $21) vs 4.2% for ARWR (target: $81).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $20.67 | $81.22 | $24.63 | $20.88 | $40.83 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 16 | 20 | 54 | 39 | 27 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
SRPT leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). ARWR leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
FULC vs ARWR vs SRPT vs NTLA vs BEAM: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(ARWR) is the stronger pick with 232. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. (FULC). Analysts rate Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. (FULC) a "Buy" — based on 16 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 — FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM?
Over the past 5 years, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(ARWR) delivered a total return of +17. 4%, compared to -79. 8% for Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. (NTLA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ARWR returned +1253% versus FULC's -49. 0%. 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 — FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc.
(FULC) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 40β versus Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. 's 2. 37β — meaning NTLA is approximately 69% more volatile than FULC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. (FULC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 91% for Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(ARWR) is pulling ahead at 232. 6% versus -100. 0% for Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. (FULC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. grew EPS 99. 8% year-over-year, compared to -637. 5% for Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ARWR leads at 50. 5% 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 — FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM?
Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc.
(FULC) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -609. 9% for Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ARWR leads at 11. 9% versus -651. 7% for NTLA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ARWR leads at 97. 1%, 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.
06Is FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FULC: 200.
4% to $20. 67.
07Which pays a better dividend — FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM?
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.
08Is FULC or ARWR or SRPT or NTLA or BEAM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(ARWR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+1253% 10Y return). Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. (NTLA) carries a higher beta of 2. 37 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ARWR: +1253%, NTLA: -42. 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.
09What are the main differences between FULC and ARWR and SRPT and NTLA and BEAM?
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: FULC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ARWR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; SRPT is a small-cap high-growth stock; NTLA is a small-cap high-growth stock; BEAM 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.
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.