Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
GH vs EXAS vs NTRA vs ILMN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
GH vs EXAS vs NTRA vs ILMN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research |
| Market Cap | $11.53B | $20.02B | $29.58B | $21.66B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $903M | $3.25B | $2.12B | $4.39B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-399M | $-208M | $-309M | $853M |
| Gross Margin | 63.8% | 69.7% | 63.7% | 67.1% |
| Operating Margin | -49.0% | -6.4% | -16.6% | 20.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | 582.8x | — | 27.5x |
| Total Debt | $1.68B | $2.52B | $187M | $2.55B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $378M | $956M | $946M | $1.42B |
GH vs EXAS vs NTRA vs ILMN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guardant Health, In… (GH) | 100 | 102.1 | +2.1% |
| Exact Sciences Corp… (EXAS) | 100 | 120.4 | +20.4% |
| Natera, Inc. (NTRA) | 100 | 490.5 | +390.5% |
| Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) | 100 | 40.4 | -59.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GH vs EXAS vs NTRA vs ILMN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if defensive is your priority.
- Beta 0.86, current ratio 4.84x
- +120.0% vs NTRA's +38.3%
EXAS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- beta 0.12
- Lower volatility, beta 0.12, current ratio 2.43x
- Beta 0.12 vs NTRA's 1.26
NTRA is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 56.7%, EPS growth 59.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 39.5%
- 21.5% 10Y total return vs EXAS's 16.7%
- 56.7% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8%
ILMN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Better valuation composite
- 19.4% margin vs GH's -44.2%
- 13.4% ROA vs GH's -31.2%, ROIC 16.8% vs -35.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 56.7% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.4% margin vs GH's -44.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs NTRA's 1.26 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +120.0% vs NTRA's +38.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.4% ROA vs GH's -31.2%, ROIC 16.8% vs -35.0% |
GH vs EXAS vs NTRA vs ILMN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GH vs EXAS vs NTRA vs ILMN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ILMN leads in 3 of 6 categories
NTRA leads 1 • EXAS leads 1 • GH leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ILMN leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ILMN is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.4B annually — 4.9x GH's $903M. ILMN is the more profitable business, keeping 19.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GH's -44.2%. On growth, GH holds the edge at +38.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $903M | $3.2B | $2.1B | $4.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$402M | -$41M | -$315M | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$399M | -$208M | -$309M | $853M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$262M | $357M | $94M | $989M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +63.8% | +69.7% | +63.7% | +67.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -49.0% | -6.4% | -16.6% | +20.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -44.2% | -6.4% | -14.6% | +19.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -29.1% | +11.0% | +4.4% | +22.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +38.5% | +23.1% | +34.7% | +4.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +15.9% | +90.4% | -146.2% | +6.1% |
Valuation Metrics
ILMN leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $11.5B | $20.0B | $29.6B | $21.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $12.8B | $21.6B | $28.8B | $22.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -27.79x | -95.37x | -140.58x | 26.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 582.83x | — | 27.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 6.18x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | 20.10x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 11.74x | 6.16x | 17.43x | 4.99x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 8.24x | 22.44x | 8.17x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 56.10x | 427.23x | 23.26x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN delivers a 32.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-25 for NTRA. NTRA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.16x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EXAS's 1.05x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ILMN scores 8/9 vs GH's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -8.7% | -24.7% | +32.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -31.2% | -3.5% | -17.0% | +13.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -35.0% | -3.6% | -33.3% | +16.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -29.4% | -4.0% | -18.1% | +17.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.05x | 0.16x | 0.94x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.3B | $1.6B | -$758M | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $378M | $956M | $946M | $1.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.7B | $2.5B | $187M | $2.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -117.27x | -5.47x | -69.90x | 12.09x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NTRA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NTRA five years ago would be worth $22,333 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,891 for ILMN. Over the past 12 months, GH leads with a +120.0% total return vs NTRA's +38.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NTRA at 59.4% vs ILMN's -9.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.3% | +3.1% | -6.0% | +6.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +120.0% | +94.3% | +38.3% | +91.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +292.1% | +53.0% | +305.1% | -25.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -31.5% | -2.9% | +123.3% | -61.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +186.5% | +1672.1% | +2147.5% | +4.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +57.7% | +15.2% | +59.4% | -9.2% |
Risk & Volatility
EXAS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
EXAS is the less volatile stock with a 0.12 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NTRA's 1.26 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. EXAS currently trades 99.9% from its 52-week high vs GH's 76.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.86x | 0.12x | 1.26x | 1.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $120.74 | $104.98 | $256.36 | $155.53 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $36.36 | $38.81 | $131.81 | $73.86 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +76.4% | +99.9% | +83.9% | +91.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.9 | 76.4 | 51.9 | 62.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.9M | 4.1M | 1.3M | 1.6M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GH as "Buy", EXAS as "Buy", NTRA as "Buy", ILMN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 44.3% upside for GH (target: $133) vs -1.6% for EXAS (target: $103).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $133.14 | $103.18 | $262.50 | $147.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 30 | 41 | 27 | 50 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | +0.1% | 0.0% | +3.4% |
ILMN leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). NTRA leads in 1 (Total Returns).
GH vs EXAS vs NTRA vs ILMN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) is the stronger pick with 56. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) offers the better valuation at 26. 2x trailing P/E (27. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Guardant Health, Inc. (GH) a "Buy" — based on 30 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 has the better valuation — GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN?
On forward P/E, Illumina, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 27. 5x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN?
Over the past 5 years, Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) delivered a total return of +123. 3%, compared to -61. 1% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +21. 5% versus ILMN's +4. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Exact Sciences Corporation (EXAS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
12β versus Natera, Inc. 's 1. 26β — meaning NTRA is approximately 943% more volatile than EXAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Natera, Inc. (NTRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 105% for Exact Sciences Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) is pulling ahead at 56. 7% versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Illumina, Inc. grew EPS 170. 9% year-over-year, compared to 6. 7% for Guardant Health, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NTRA leads at 39. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN?
Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 6% net margin versus -42. 4% for Guardant Health, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ILMN leads at 19. 9% versus -44. 5% for GH. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EXAS leads at 69. 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.
07Is GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) trades at 27. 5x forward P/E versus 582. 8x for Exact Sciences Corporation — 555. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GH: 44. 3% to $133. 14.
08Which pays a better dividend — GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN?
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.
09Is GH or EXAS or NTRA or ILMN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Exact Sciences Corporation (EXAS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
12), +1672% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (EXAS: +1672%, NTRA: +21. 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.
10What are the main differences between GH and EXAS and NTRA and ILMN?
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: GH is a mid-cap high-growth stock; EXAS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; NTRA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ILMN is a mid-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.