Drug Manufacturers - General
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GRFS vs BHVN vs ICLR vs IQV vs CRL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
GRFS vs BHVN vs ICLR vs IQV vs CRL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Drug Manufacturers - General | Biotechnology | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research |
| Market Cap | $6.85B | $1.04B | $9.51B | $30.33B | $8.76B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $7.51B | $0.00 | $8.10B | $16.63B | $4.03B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $401M | $-648M | $599M | $1.39B | $-185M |
| Gross Margin | 38.4% | — | 26.9% | 26.1% | 31.9% |
| Operating Margin | 17.0% | — | 12.2% | 13.9% | 11.8% |
| Forward P/E | 9.4x | — | 10.7x | 14.0x | 16.0x |
| Total Debt | $8.74B | $279M | $3.60B | $16.17B | $3.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $825M | $230M | $539M | $1.98B | $214M |
GRFS vs BHVN vs ICLR vs IQV vs CRL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grifols, S.A. (GRFS) | 100 | 131.5 | +31.5% |
| Biohaven Ltd. (BHVN) | 100 | 156.5 | +56.5% |
| ICON Public Limited… (ICLR) | 100 | 67.7 | -32.3% |
| IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) | 100 | 98.7 | -1.3% |
| Charles River Labor… (CRL) | 100 | 90.3 | -9.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GRFS vs BHVN vs ICLR vs IQV vs CRL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GRFS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 1.10, yield 2.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.10, current ratio 2.51x
- Beta 1.10, yield 2.6%, current ratio 2.51x
- Lower P/E (9.4x vs 16.0x)
BHVN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth.
- 27.3% revenue growth vs CRL's -0.9%
ICLR is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 2.0%, EPS growth 28.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 14.8%
IQV is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- 166.6% 10Y total return vs BHVN's 35.1%
- PEG 0.34 vs ICLR's 1.53
- 8.3% margin vs CRL's -4.6%
- 4.7% ROA vs BHVN's -138.0%, ROIC 8.7% vs -242.1%
CRL is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +25.7% vs BHVN's -51.3%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 27.3% revenue growth vs CRL's -0.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.4x vs 16.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 8.3% margin vs CRL's -4.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.10 vs ICLR's 1.64 | |
| Dividends | 2.6% yield; 2-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +25.7% vs BHVN's -51.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.7% ROA vs BHVN's -138.0%, ROIC 8.7% vs -242.1% |
GRFS vs BHVN vs ICLR vs IQV vs CRL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
GRFS vs BHVN vs ICLR vs IQV vs CRL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IQV leads in 2 of 6 categories
GRFS leads 1 • BHVN leads 0 • ICLR leads 0 • CRL leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IQV leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IQV and BHVN operate at a comparable scale, with $16.6B and $0 in trailing revenue. IQV is the more profitable business, keeping 8.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CRL's -4.6%. On growth, IQV holds the edge at +8.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $7.5B | $0 | $8.1B | $16.6B | $4.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.6B | -$646M | $1.4B | $3.5B | $824M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $401M | -$648M | $599M | $1.4B | -$185M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $772M | -$594M | $996M | $2.7B | $391M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +38.4% | — | +26.9% | +26.1% | +31.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +17.0% | — | +12.2% | +13.9% | +11.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.3% | — | +7.4% | +8.3% | -4.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +10.3% | — | +12.3% | +16.1% | +9.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -0.6% | — | +0.6% | +8.4% | +1.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +40.0% | +59.4% | -98.7% | +15.0% | -160.0% |
Valuation Metrics
GRFS leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.1x trailing earnings, GRFS trades at a 47% valuation discount to IQV's 22.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), IQV offers better value at 0.56x vs ICLR's 1.86x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.9B | $1.0B | $9.5B | $30.3B | $8.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $16.1B | $1.1B | $12.6B | $44.5B | $11.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.11x | -1.44x | 13.06x | 22.79x | -61.04x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.35x | — | 10.73x | 13.96x | 16.00x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.86x | 0.56x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.49x | — | 7.92x | 12.98x | 12.75x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.81x | — | 1.15x | 1.86x | 2.18x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.62x | 20.38x | 1.09x | 4.68x | 2.74x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.77x | — | 8.50x | 14.79x | 16.90x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IQV leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IQV delivers a 22.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $22 in annual profit, vs $-9 for BHVN. ICLR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.38x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BHVN's 5.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ICLR scores 7/9 vs BHVN's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +5.2% | -8.7% | +6.3% | +22.1% | -5.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.0% | -138.0% | +3.6% | +4.7% | -2.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.4% | -2.4% | +6.5% | +8.7% | +6.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.4% | -187.2% | +7.8% | +11.0% | +8.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.15x | 5.36x | 0.38x | 2.44x | 0.95x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $7.9B | $49M | $3.1B | $14.2B | $2.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $825M | $230M | $539M | $2.0B | $214M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $8.7B | $279M | $3.6B | $16.2B | $3.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.05x | — | 3.96x | 3.10x | 4.29x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — GRFS and BHVN each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BHVN five years ago would be worth $13,507 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,643 for GRFS. Over the past 12 months, CRL leads with a +25.7% total return vs BHVN's -51.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GRFS at 3.1% vs ICLR's -13.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -12.3% | -9.0% | -34.0% | -20.7% | -12.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +13.4% | -51.3% | -10.1% | +16.6% | +25.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +9.5% | -30.6% | -34.4% | -5.9% | -6.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -53.6% | +35.1% | -44.8% | -22.8% | -46.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -35.2% | +35.1% | +90.2% | +166.6% | +114.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +3.1% | -11.5% | -13.1% | -2.0% | -2.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — GRFS and CRL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GRFS is the less volatile stock with a 1.10 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ICLR's 1.64 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CRL currently trades 77.6% from its 52-week high vs BHVN's 44.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.10x | 1.23x | 1.64x | 1.32x | 1.44x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $11.14 | $22.05 | $211.00 | $247.05 | $228.88 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.09 | $7.48 | $66.57 | $134.65 | $132.58 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +72.7% | +44.7% | +59.0% | +72.3% | +77.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 45.4 | 48.7 | 62.8 | 60.3 | 57.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 681K | 2.0M | 1.1M | 1.5M | 792K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — GRFS and IQV each lead in 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GRFS as "Buy", BHVN as "Buy", ICLR as "Buy", IQV as "Buy", CRL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 80.8% upside for BHVN (target: $18) vs 16.2% for CRL (target: $206). GRFS is the only dividend payer here at 2.62% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $17.83 | $152.13 | $223.75 | $206.43 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 25 | 30 | 44 | 36 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.6% | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | — | — | 2 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.18 | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.1% | 0.0% | +5.3% | +4.1% | +4.1% |
IQV leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). GRFS leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
GRFS vs BHVN vs ICLR vs IQV vs CRL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, IQVIA Holdings Inc.
(IQV) is the stronger pick with 5. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 9% for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (CRL). Grifols, S. A. (GRFS) offers the better valuation at 12. 1x trailing P/E (9. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Grifols, S. A. (GRFS) a "Buy" — based on 8 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 — GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL?
On trailing P/E, Grifols, S.
A. (GRFS) is the cheapest at 12. 1x versus IQVIA Holdings Inc. at 22. 8x. On forward P/E, Grifols, S. A. is actually cheaper at 9. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: IQVIA Holdings Inc. wins at 0. 34x versus ICON Public Limited Company's 1. 53x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL?
Over the past 5 years, Biohaven Ltd.
(BHVN) delivered a total return of +35. 1%, compared to -53. 6% for Grifols, S. A. (GRFS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IQV returned +166. 6% versus GRFS's -35. 2%. 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 — GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Grifols, S.
A. (GRFS) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 10β versus ICON Public Limited Company's 1. 64β — meaning ICLR is approximately 49% more volatile than GRFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, ICON Public Limited Company (ICLR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 5% for Biohaven Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), IQVIA Holdings Inc.
(IQV) is pulling ahead at 5. 9% versus -0. 9% for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (CRL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Grifols, S. A. grew EPS 147. 8% year-over-year, compared to -1555. 0% for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ICLR leads at 14. 8% 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 — GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL?
ICON Public Limited Company (ICLR) is the more profitable company, earning 9.
6% net margin versus -3. 6% for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GRFS leads at 16. 4% versus 0. 0% for BHVN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GRFS leads at 35. 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 GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL 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, IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 34x versus ICON Public Limited Company's 1. 53x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Grifols, S. A. (GRFS) trades at 9. 4x forward P/E versus 16. 0x for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. — 6. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BHVN: 80. 8% to $17. 83.
08Which pays a better dividend — GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL?
In this comparison, GRFS (2.
6% yield) pays a dividend. BHVN, ICLR, IQV, CRL do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GRFS or BHVN or ICLR or IQV or CRL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Grifols, S.
A. (GRFS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 10), 2. 6% yield). ICON Public Limited Company (ICLR) carries a higher beta of 1. 64 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GRFS: -35. 2%, ICLR: +90. 2%), 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 GRFS and BHVN and ICLR and IQV and CRL?
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: GRFS is a small-cap deep-value stock; BHVN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ICLR is a small-cap deep-value stock; IQV is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CRL is a small-cap quality compounder stock. GRFS pays a dividend while BHVN, ICLR, IQV, CRL 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.
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.