Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
GLUE vs PRAX vs KO vs ARVN vs BEAM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
GLUE vs PRAX vs KO vs ARVN vs BEAM — 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 | $7.70B | $355.61B | $489M | $2.98B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $43M | $0.00 | $49.28B | $89M | $132M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-130M | $-327M | $13.70B | $-221M | $-65M |
| Gross Margin | 95.3% | — | 61.7% | 97.4% | -64.2% |
| Operating Margin | -345.2% | — | 29.3% | -279.3% | -281.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 25.3x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $39M | $110K | $45.49B | $9M | $294M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $130M | $357M | $10.27B | $143M | $295M |
GLUE vs PRAX vs KO vs ARVN vs BEAM — 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% |
| Praxis Precision Me… (PRAX) | 100 | 97.2 | -2.8% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 152.7 | +52.7% |
| Arvinas, Inc. (ARVN) | 100 | 9.8 | -90.2% |
| Beam Therapeutics I… (BEAM) | 100 | 22.6 | -77.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GLUE vs PRAX vs KO vs ARVN vs BEAM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, GLUE doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
PRAX is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +491.9% vs ARVN's +0.1%
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 56 yrs, beta -0.20, yield 2.5%
- 121.1% 10Y total return vs GLUE's -13.9%
- 27.8% margin vs GLUE's -302.7%
- 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
ARVN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.14, Low D/E 2.1%, current ratio 4.92x
- Beta 1.14, current ratio 4.92x
- Beta 1.14 vs BEAM's 2.18, lower leverage
BEAM is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 120.0%, EPS growth 82.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 31.9%
- 120.0% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 120.0% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs GLUE's -302.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.14 vs BEAM's 2.18, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +491.9% vs ARVN's +0.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs PRAX's -40.2%, ROIC 15.8% vs -65.0% |
GLUE vs PRAX vs KO vs ARVN vs BEAM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
GLUE vs PRAX vs KO vs ARVN vs BEAM — 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
ARVN leads 1 • GLUE leads 0 • PRAX leads 0 • BEAM leads 0 • 1 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 PRAX 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 | $0 | $49.3B | $89M | $132M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$140M | -$357M | $15.5B | -$245M | -$355M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$130M | -$327M | $13.7B | -$221M | -$65M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$20M | -$283M | $12.6B | -$257M | -$384M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +95.3% | — | +61.7% | +97.4% | -64.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.5% | — | +29.3% | -2.8% | -2.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.0% | — | +27.8% | -2.5% | -49.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -45.8% | — | +25.5% | -2.9% | -2.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -95.0% | — | +12.1% | -91.7% | -100.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.2% | +2.7% | +18.2% | -178.9% | +26.6% |
Valuation Metrics
ARVN leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $7.7B | $355.6B | $489M | $3.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.1B | $7.3B | $390.8B | $355M | $3.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -39.64x | -19.77x | 27.18x | -5.92x | -35.84x |
| 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 | — | 7.42x | 1.86x | 21.34x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 6.50x | 6.83x | 10.40x | 1.13x | 2.32x |
| 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 $-44 for ARVN. PRAX 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 PRAX's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -41.0% | -43.0% | +41.1% | -44.4% | -5.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -25.9% | -40.2% | +13.1% | -28.4% | -4.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -44.2% | -65.0% | +15.8% | -22.4% | -31.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -16.3% | -49.3% | +17.3% | -16.0% | -33.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.17x | 0.00x | 1.33x | 0.02x | 0.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$91M | -$357M | $35.2B | -$134M | -$1M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $130M | $357M | $10.3B | $143M | $295M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $39M | $110,000 | $45.5B | $9M | $294M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 10.70x | — | 1.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — PRAX and KO each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in KO five years ago would be worth $16,560 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $900 for ARVN. Over the past 12 months, PRAX leads with a +491.9% total return vs ARVN's +0.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PRAX at 164.8% vs ARVN's -35.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +19.1% | -6.9% | +20.3% | -33.9% | +7.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +270.6% | +491.9% | +17.2% | +0.1% | +66.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +166.2% | +1757.4% | +47.0% | -73.7% | -12.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -13.9% | -14.2% | +65.6% | -91.0% | -68.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -13.9% | -36.1% | +121.1% | -52.8% | +54.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +38.6% | +164.8% | +13.7% | -35.9% | -4.2% |
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 BEAM's 2.18 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 ARVN's 52.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.29x | 1.55x | -0.20x | 1.14x | 2.18x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.77 | $366.52 | $84.04 | $14.51 | $36.44 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.12 | $37.19 | $65.35 | $6.06 | $15.60 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +70.8% | +72.7% | +98.3% | +52.2% | +79.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 42.0 | 31.9 | 60.6 | 24.1 | 48.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 815K | 396K | 12.7M | 794K | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GLUE as "Buy", PRAX as "Buy", KO as "Buy", ARVN as "Buy", BEAM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 127.8% upside for PRAX (target: $607) 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 | $607.15 | $86.13 | $14.75 | $48.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 16 | 48 | 26 | 27 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 56 | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +18.8% | 0.0% |
KO leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ARVN leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
GLUE vs PRAX vs KO vs ARVN vs BEAM: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GLUE or PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM 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 -100. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). 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 PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM?
Over the past 5 years, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) delivered a total return of +65.
6%, compared to -91. 0% for Arvinas, Inc. (ARVN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: KO returned +121. 1% versus ARVN's -52. 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 — GLUE or PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Beam Therapeutics Inc. 's 2. 18β — meaning BEAM is approximately -1190% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX) 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 PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Beam Therapeutics Inc.
(BEAM) is pulling ahead at 120. 0% versus -100. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Beam Therapeutics Inc. grew EPS 82. 3% year-over-year, compared to -32. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, 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 PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM?
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 — ARVN leads at 98. 0%, 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 PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PRAX: 127.
8% to $607. 15.
07Which pays a better dividend — GLUE or PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. GLUE, PRAX, ARVN, BEAM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is GLUE or PRAX or KO or ARVN or BEAM 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). Beam Therapeutics Inc. (BEAM) carries a higher beta of 2. 18 — 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%, BEAM: +54. 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.
09What are the main differences between GLUE and PRAX and KO and ARVN and BEAM?
These companies operate in different sectors (GLUE (Healthcare) and PRAX (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and ARVN (Healthcare) and BEAM (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; PRAX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; ARVN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BEAM is a small-cap high-growth stock. KO pays a dividend while GLUE, PRAX, ARVN, BEAM 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.