Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
HCM vs LEGN vs BMY vs RCUS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - General
Biotechnology
HCM vs LEGN vs BMY vs RCUS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $2.26B | $5.19B | $114.66B | $2.55B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $602M | $1.03B | $48.48B | $236M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $467M | $-297M | $7.28B | $-369M |
| Gross Margin | 8.9% | 60.3% | 68.7% | 90.7% |
| Operating Margin | -3.3% | -13.2% | 25.7% | -168.6% |
| Forward P/E | 41.1x | 116.2x | 8.9x | — |
| Total Debt | $90M | $414M | $47.14B | $99M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $154M | $902M | $10.21B | $222M |
HCM vs LEGN vs BMY vs RCUS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUTCHMED (China) Li… (HCM) | 100 | 47.6 | -52.4% |
| Legend Biotech Corp… (LEGN) | 100 | 66.1 | -33.9% |
| Bristol-Myers Squib… (BMY) | 100 | 95.5 | -4.5% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 102.5 | +2.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HCM vs LEGN vs BMY vs RCUS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HCM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.66, Low D/E 11.6%, current ratio 2.83x
- Beta 0.66, current ratio 2.83x
- 77.5% margin vs RCUS's -156.4%
- 30.6% ROA vs RCUS's -35.3%, ROIC -5.2% vs -64.1%
LEGN is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 64.5%, EPS growth -66.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 106.6%
- 64.5% revenue growth vs HCM's -24.8%
BMY carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 6 yrs, beta 0.45, yield 4.4%
- 6.6% 10Y total return vs RCUS's 49.2%
- Better valuation composite
- Beta 0.45 vs RCUS's 1.84
RCUS is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +197.3% vs LEGN's -12.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 64.5% revenue growth vs HCM's -24.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 77.5% margin vs RCUS's -156.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.45 vs RCUS's 1.84 | |
| Dividends | 4.4% yield; 6-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +197.3% vs LEGN's -12.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 30.6% ROA vs RCUS's -35.3%, ROIC -5.2% vs -64.1% |
HCM vs LEGN vs BMY vs RCUS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
HCM vs LEGN vs BMY vs RCUS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BMY leads in 2 of 6 categories
RCUS leads 1 • HCM leads 0 • LEGN leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — HCM and BMY each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BMY is the larger business by revenue, generating $48.5B annually — 205.4x RCUS's $236M. HCM is the more profitable business, keeping 77.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RCUS's -156.4%. On growth, LEGN holds the edge at +64.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $602M | $1.0B | $48.5B | $236M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$7M | -$107M | $15.7B | -$391M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $467M | -$297M | $7.3B | -$369M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$50M | -$231M | $11.9B | -$489M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +8.9% | +60.3% | +68.7% | +90.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.3% | -13.2% | +25.7% | -168.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +77.5% | -28.8% | +15.0% | -156.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -8.2% | -22.4% | +24.6% | -2.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.2% | +64.9% | +2.6% | -39.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +16.6% | -2.2% | +9.2% | +10.5% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — LEGN and BMY each lead in 2 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.3x trailing earnings, BMY trades at a 73% valuation discount to HCM's 59.7x P/E.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.3B | $5.2B | $114.7B | $2.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.2B | $4.7B | $151.6B | $2.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 59.68x | -8.73x | 16.28x | -7.71x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 41.10x | 116.25x | 8.91x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 9.16x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.58x | 5.03x | 2.38x | 10.34x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.97x | 2.59x | 6.19x | 4.32x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 8.93x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — HCM and BMY each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HCM delivers a 46.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $46 in annual profit, vs $-69 for RCUS. HCM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.12x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BMY's 2.55x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BMY scores 8/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +46.4% | -29.2% | +39.0% | -69.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +30.6% | -17.6% | +7.9% | -35.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -5.2% | -12.7% | +16.9% | -64.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -4.9% | -11.0% | +18.7% | -42.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 0 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.12x | 0.41x | 2.55x | 0.16x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$64M | -$488M | $36.9B | -$123M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $154M | $902M | $10.2B | $222M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $90M | $414M | $47.1B | $99M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -15.22x | -12.69x | 10.33x | -13.38x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RCUS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BMY five years ago would be worth $10,467 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,254 for HCM. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +197.3% total return vs LEGN's -12.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RCUS at 8.5% vs LEGN's -25.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -3.8% | +30.7% | +7.4% | +8.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -9.7% | -12.2% | +25.1% | +197.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -15.4% | -59.1% | -7.3% | +27.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -47.5% | -4.2% | +4.7% | -12.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -0.4% | -24.0% | +6.6% | +49.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -5.4% | -25.8% | -2.5% | +8.5% |
Risk & Volatility
BMY leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BMY is the less volatile stock with a 0.45 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RCUS's 1.84 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BMY currently trades 89.3% from its 52-week high vs LEGN's 62.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.66x | 0.76x | 0.45x | 1.84x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $19.50 | $45.30 | $62.89 | $28.72 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $12.91 | $16.24 | $42.52 | $7.72 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +67.3% | +62.1% | +89.3% | +88.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 35.5 | 74.8 | 40.4 | 52.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 31K | 1.9M | 10.2M | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
BMY leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HCM as "Buy", LEGN as "Buy", BMY as "Hold", RCUS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 105.9% upside for LEGN (target: $58) vs 10.4% for BMY (target: $62). BMY is the only dividend payer here at 4.40% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $17.50 | $57.89 | $62.00 | $30.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 19 | 41 | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +4.4% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 6 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.47 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
BMY leads in 2 of 6 categories (Risk & Volatility, Analyst Outlook). RCUS leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
HCM vs LEGN vs BMY vs RCUS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Legend Biotech Corporation (LEGN) is the stronger pick with 64.
5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -24. 8% for HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM). Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) offers the better valuation at 16. 3x trailing P/E (8. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM) a "Buy" — based on 10 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 — HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS?
On trailing P/E, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) is the cheapest at 16.
3x versus HUTCHMED (China) Limited at 59. 7x. On forward P/E, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is actually cheaper at 8. 9x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS?
Over the past 5 years, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) delivered a total return of +4.
7%, compared to -47. 5% for HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RCUS returned +49. 2% versus LEGN's -24. 0%. 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 — HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
45β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 84β — meaning RCUS is approximately 304% more volatile than BMY relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 12% versus 3% for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Legend Biotech Corporation (LEGN) is pulling ahead at 64.
5% versus -24. 8% for HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company grew EPS 178. 2% year-over-year, compared to -66. 0% for Legend Biotech Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, LEGN leads at 106. 6% 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 — HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS?
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) is the more profitable company, earning 14.
6% net margin versus -142. 9% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. — meaning it keeps 14. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BMY leads at 26. 3% versus -156. 3% for RCUS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RCUS leads at 96. 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 HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) trades at 8.
9x forward P/E versus 116. 2x for Legend Biotech Corporation — 107. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LEGN: 105. 9% to $57. 89.
08Which pays a better dividend — HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS?
In this comparison, BMY (4.
4% yield) pays a dividend. HCM, LEGN, RCUS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is HCM or LEGN or BMY or RCUS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
45), 4. 4% yield). Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS) carries a higher beta of 1. 84 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (BMY: +6. 6%, RCUS: +49. 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 HCM and LEGN and BMY and RCUS?
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: HCM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LEGN is a small-cap high-growth stock; BMY is a mid-cap deep-value stock; RCUS is a small-cap quality compounder stock. BMY pays a dividend while HCM, LEGN, RCUS 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.