Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
GOSS vs ARWR vs JPM vs PRAX vs BAC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Banks - Diversified
Biotechnology
Banks - Diversified
GOSS vs ARWR vs JPM vs PRAX vs BAC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Banks - Diversified | Biotechnology | Banks - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $38M | $10.50B | $896.00B | $7.70B | $422.78B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $56M | $622M | $280.33B | $0.00 | $191.57B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-180M | $-301M | $57.05B | $-327M | $30.51B |
| Gross Margin | 99.6% | 99.0% | 60.0% | — | 56.1% |
| Operating Margin | -321.9% | -35.7% | 25.9% | — | 19.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 14.4x | — | 12.6x |
| Total Debt | $202M | $366M | $942.38B | $110K | $365.90B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $38M | $227M | $343.34B | $357M | $231.84B |
GOSS vs ARWR vs JPM vs PRAX vs BAC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gossamer Bio, Inc. (GOSS) | 100 | 2.0 | -98.0% |
| Arrowhead Pharmaceu… (ARWR) | 100 | 130.1 | +30.1% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 327.1 | +227.1% |
| Praxis Precision Me… (PRAX) | 100 | 50.8 | -49.2% |
| Bank of America Cor… (BAC) | 100 | 236.4 | +136.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GOSS vs ARWR vs JPM vs PRAX vs BAC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, GOSS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
ARWR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 232.6%, EPS growth 99.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 50.5%
- 232.6% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0%
JPM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs ARWR's 11.7%
- PEG 0.81 vs BAC's 0.82
- NIM 2.2% vs BAC's 1.8%
- Better valuation composite
PRAX ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.55, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 10.22x
- +491.9% vs GOSS's -87.3%
BAC is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.86, yield 2.3%
- Beta 0.86, yield 2.3%, current ratio 0.42x
- Beta 0.86 vs GOSS's 2.45
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 232.6% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.4% margin vs GOSS's -324.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.86 vs GOSS's 2.45 | |
| Dividends | 1.9% yield, 15-year raise streak, vs BAC's 2.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +491.9% vs GOSS's -87.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.3% ROA vs GOSS's -96.1%, ROIC 4.5% vs -107.5% |
GOSS vs ARWR vs JPM vs PRAX vs BAC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
GOSS vs ARWR vs JPM vs PRAX vs BAC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
JPM leads in 2 of 6 categories
BAC leads 2 • PRAX leads 1 • GOSS leads 0 • ARWR leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM and PRAX operate at a comparable scale, with $280.3B and $0 in trailing revenue. JPM is the more profitable business, keeping 20.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GOSS's -3.2%. On growth, GOSS holds the edge at +71.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $56M | $622M | $280.3B | $0 | $191.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$178M | -$197M | $81.4B | -$357M | $40.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$180M | -$301M | $57.0B | -$327M | $30.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$170M | -$51M | $100.9B | -$283M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +99.6% | +99.0% | +60.0% | — | +56.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.2% | -35.7% | +25.9% | — | +19.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.2% | -48.4% | +20.4% | — | +15.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -3.1% | -8.2% | +36.0% | — | +6.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +71.5% | -86.4% | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -25.0% | -133.8% | +16.0% | +2.7% | +18.3% |
Valuation Metrics
BAC leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.7x trailing earnings, BAC trades at a 8% valuation discount to JPM's 16.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs BAC's 0.95x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $38M | $10.5B | $896.0B | $7.7B | $422.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $202M | $10.6B | $1.50T | $7.3B | $556.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.22x | -6108.20x | 16.00x | -19.77x | 14.66x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 14.40x | — | 12.56x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.90x | — | 0.95x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 86.99x | 18.36x | — | 13.92x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.78x | 12.65x | 3.20x | — | 2.21x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 19.80x | 2.47x | 6.83x | 1.39x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 66.91x | 8.88x | — | 33.52x |
Profitability & Efficiency
JPM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
JPM delivers a 15.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $-55 for ARWR. PRAX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BAC scores 7/9 vs GOSS's 0/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -55.1% | +15.9% | -43.0% | +10.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -96.1% | -18.1% | +1.3% | -40.2% | +0.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -107.5% | +9.3% | +4.5% | -65.0% | +3.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -86.1% | +8.8% | +8.9% | -49.3% | +4.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.73x | 2.60x | 0.00x | 1.21x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $164M | $140M | $599.0B | -$357M | $134.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $38M | $227M | $343.3B | $357M | $231.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $202M | $366M | $942.4B | $110,000 | $365.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -15.50x | -2.03x | 0.74x | — | 0.48x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PRAX leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $21,820 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $184 for GOSS. Over the past 12 months, PRAX leads with a +491.9% total return vs GOSS's -87.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PRAX at 164.8% vs GOSS's -48.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -94.4% | +9.9% | -0.5% | -6.9% | +1.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -87.3% | +359.4% | +21.8% | +491.9% | +28.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.9% | +110.6% | +138.2% | +1757.4% | +103.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.2% | -15.7% | +118.2% | -14.2% | +47.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.1% | +1169.5% | +465.8% | -36.1% | +368.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -48.0% | +28.2% | +33.6% | +164.8% | +26.6% |
Risk & Volatility
BAC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BAC is the less volatile stock with a 0.86 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GOSS's 2.45 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BAC currently trades 97.3% from its 52-week high vs GOSS's 4.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.45x | 1.69x | 0.94x | 1.55x | 0.86x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.87 | $82.00 | $337.25 | $366.52 | $57.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.14 | $14.30 | $262.71 | $37.19 | $43.66 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +4.2% | +90.9% | +95.1% | +72.7% | +97.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 34.1 | 50.6 | 59.1 | 31.9 | 68.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 10.7M | 1.6M | 7.0M | 396K | 31.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — JPM and BAC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GOSS as "Buy", ARWR as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", PRAX as "Buy", BAC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 373.6% upside for GOSS (target: $1) vs 5.9% for JPM (target: $340). For income investors, BAC offers the higher dividend yield at 2.26% vs JPM's 1.86%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $0.77 | $84.00 | $339.75 | $607.15 | $61.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 17 | 20 | 61 | 16 | 54 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +1.9% | — | +2.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 15 | — | 12 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $5.95 | — | $1.27 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.9% | 0.0% | +5.1% |
JPM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). BAC leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Risk & Volatility). 1 tied.
GOSS vs ARWR vs JPM vs PRAX vs BAC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC 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 Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). Bank of America Corporation (BAC) offers the better valuation at 14. 7x trailing P/E (12. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Gossamer Bio, Inc. (GOSS) a "Buy" — based on 17 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 — GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC?
On trailing P/E, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the cheapest at 14.
7x versus JPMorgan Chase & Co. at 16. 0x. On forward P/E, Bank of America Corporation is actually cheaper at 12. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 81x versus Bank of America Corporation's 0. 82x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +118. 2%, compared to -98. 2% for Gossamer Bio, Inc. (GOSS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ARWR returned +1170% versus GOSS's -99. 1%. 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 — GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
86β versus Gossamer Bio, Inc. 's 2. 45β — meaning GOSS is approximately 183% more volatile than BAC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(ARWR) is pulling ahead at 232. 6% versus -100. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. grew EPS 99. 8% year-over-year, compared to -200. 0% for Gossamer Bio, Inc.. 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 — GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC?
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 4% net margin versus -351. 5% for Gossamer Bio, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: JPM leads at 26. 0% versus -336. 8% for GOSS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ARWR leads at 100. 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.
07Is GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 81x versus Bank of America Corporation's 0. 82x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) trades at 12. 6x forward P/E versus 14. 4x for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — 1. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GOSS: 373. 6% to $0. 77.
08Which pays a better dividend — GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC?
In this comparison, BAC (2.
3% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield) pay a dividend. GOSS, ARWR, PRAX do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GOSS or ARWR or JPM or PRAX or BAC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
86), 2. 3% yield, +368. 2% 10Y return). Gossamer Bio, Inc. (GOSS) carries a higher beta of 2. 45 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (BAC: +368. 2%, GOSS: -99. 1%), 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 GOSS and ARWR and JPM and PRAX and BAC?
These companies operate in different sectors (GOSS (Healthcare) and ARWR (Healthcare) and JPM (Financial Services) and PRAX (Healthcare) and BAC (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: GOSS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ARWR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; PRAX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BAC is a large-cap deep-value stock. JPM, BAC pay a dividend while GOSS, ARWR, PRAX 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.