Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
GLUE vs BEAM vs KO vs IMVT vs SANA
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
GLUE vs BEAM vs KO vs IMVT vs SANA — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $1.19B | $2.98B | $355.61B | $6.90B | $746M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $43M | $132M | $49.28B | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-130M | $-65M | $13.70B | $-506M | $-242M |
| Gross Margin | 95.3% | -64.2% | 61.7% | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -345.2% | -281.0% | 29.3% | — | — |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 25.3x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $39M | $294M | $45.49B | $72K | $79M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $130M | $295M | $10.27B | $902M | $72M |
GLUE vs BEAM vs KO vs IMVT vs SANA — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monte Rosa Therapeu… (GLUE) | 100 | 80.3 | -19.7% |
| Beam Therapeutics I… (BEAM) | 100 | 22.6 | -77.4% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 152.7 | +52.7% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 318.1 | +218.1% |
| Sana Biotechnology,… (SANA) | 100 | 13.6 | -86.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GLUE vs BEAM vs KO vs IMVT vs SANA
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GLUE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- beta 1.29
- Lower volatility, beta 1.29, Low D/E 16.8%, current ratio 6.12x
- Beta 1.29, current ratio 6.12x
- Beta 1.29 vs SANA's 2.70, lower leverage
BEAM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 120.0%, EPS growth 82.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 31.9%
- 120.0% revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2%
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and dividends.
- 27.8% margin vs GLUE's -302.7%
- 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
- 13.1% ROA vs IMVT's -62.2%
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 237.9% 10Y total return vs KO's 121.1%
Among these 5 stocks, SANA doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 120.0% revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2% | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs GLUE's -302.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.29 vs SANA's 2.70, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +270.6% vs SANA's +5.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs IMVT's -62.2% |
GLUE vs BEAM vs KO vs IMVT vs SANA — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
GLUE vs BEAM vs KO vs IMVT vs SANA — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 4 of 6 categories
GLUE leads 0 • BEAM leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • SANA leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO and SANA operate at a comparable scale, with $49.3B and $0 in trailing revenue. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GLUE's -3.0%. On growth, KO holds the edge at +12.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $43M | $132M | $49.3B | $0 | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$140M | -$355M | $15.5B | -$532M | -$226M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$130M | -$65M | $13.7B | -$506M | -$242M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$20M | -$384M | $12.6B | -$407M | -$134M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +95.3% | -64.2% | +61.7% | — | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.5% | -2.8% | +29.3% | — | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.0% | -49.2% | +27.8% | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -45.8% | -2.9% | +25.5% | — | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -95.0% | -100.0% | +12.1% | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.2% | +26.6% | +18.2% | -14.1% | +19.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — GLUE and BEAM and KO each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $3.0B | $355.6B | $6.9B | $746M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.1B | $3.0B | $390.8B | $6.0B | $753M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -39.64x | -35.84x | 27.18x | -12.14x | -2.79x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 25.27x | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 26.39x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 9.60x | 21.34x | 7.42x | — | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 6.50x | 2.32x | 10.40x | 7.19x | 4.22x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 67.15x | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-162 for SANA. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs SANA's 1/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -41.0% | -5.9% | +41.1% | -68.2% | -161.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -25.9% | -4.6% | +13.1% | -62.2% | -61.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -44.2% | -31.1% | +15.8% | — | -74.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -16.3% | -33.3% | +17.3% | -68.3% | -48.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 1 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.17x | 0.24x | 1.33x | 0.00x | 0.49x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$91M | -$1M | $35.2B | -$902M | $7M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $130M | $295M | $10.3B | $902M | $72M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $39M | $294M | $45.5B | $72,000 | $79M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 1.08x | 10.70x | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — GLUE and IMVT each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IMVT five years ago would be worth $31,304 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,086 for SANA. Over the past 12 months, GLUE leads with a +270.6% total return vs SANA's +5.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GLUE at 38.6% vs SANA's -25.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +19.1% | +7.0% | +20.3% | +29.8% | -36.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +270.6% | +66.5% | +17.2% | +110.9% | +5.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +166.2% | -12.0% | +47.0% | +55.0% | -59.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -13.9% | -68.4% | +65.6% | +213.0% | -89.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -13.9% | +54.8% | +121.1% | +237.9% | -92.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +38.6% | -4.2% | +13.7% | +15.7% | -25.8% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SANA's 2.70 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs SANA's 40.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.29x | 2.18x | -0.20x | 1.66x | 2.70x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.77 | $36.44 | $84.04 | $36.27 | $6.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.12 | $15.60 | $65.35 | $14.32 | $2.41 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +70.8% | +79.7% | +98.3% | +92.7% | +40.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 42.0 | 48.4 | 60.6 | 57.9 | 36.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 815K | 1.9M | 12.7M | 1.9M | 3.8M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GLUE as "Buy", BEAM as "Buy", KO as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", SANA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 223.5% upside for SANA (target: $9) vs 4.2% for KO (target: $86). KO is the only dividend payer here at 2.46% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $31.75 | $48.00 | $86.13 | $43.67 | $8.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 27 | 48 | 23 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 56 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
KO leads in 4 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Profitability & Efficiency. 2 categories are tied.
GLUE vs BEAM vs KO vs IMVT vs SANA: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Beam Therapeutics Inc.
(BEAM) is the stronger pick with 120. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). The Coca-Cola Company (KO) offers the better valuation at 27. 2x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. (GLUE) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 — GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +213. 0%, compared to -89. 1% for Sana Biotechnology, Inc. (SANA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +237. 9% versus SANA's -92. 4%. 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 — GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Sana Biotechnology, Inc. 's 2. 70β — meaning SANA is approximately -1448% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Beam Therapeutics Inc.
(BEAM) is pulling ahead at 120. 0% versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Beam Therapeutics Inc. grew EPS 82. 3% year-over-year, compared to -1. 5% for Immunovant, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, BEAM leads at 31. 9% 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 — GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -57. 2% for Beam Therapeutics Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -274. 6% for BEAM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GLUE 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.
06Is GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SANA: 223.
5% to $8. 67.
07Which pays a better dividend — GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. GLUE, BEAM, IMVT, SANA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is GLUE or BEAM or KO or IMVT or SANA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Sana Biotechnology, Inc. (SANA) carries a higher beta of 2. 70 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, SANA: -92. 4%), 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 GLUE and BEAM and KO and IMVT and SANA?
These companies operate in different sectors (GLUE (Healthcare) and BEAM (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and IMVT (Healthcare) and SANA (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: GLUE is a small-cap high-growth stock; BEAM is a small-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SANA is a small-cap quality compounder stock. KO pays a dividend while GLUE, BEAM, IMVT, SANA do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.