Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
IMA vs ARQT vs KO vs PEP vs SRZN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Biotechnology
IMA vs ARQT vs KO vs PEP vs SRZN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $61M | $3.05B | $355.61B | $197.17B | $175M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $416M | $49.28B | $93.92B | $7M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-45M | $-2M | $13.70B | $8.24B | $-343M |
| Gross Margin | -29.1% | 90.9% | 61.7% | 54.1% | 99.1% |
| Operating Margin | -60.6% | 0.8% | 29.3% | 12.2% | -5.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | 122.5x | 25.3x | 16.7x | — |
| Total Debt | $10M | $6M | $45.49B | $49.90B | $7M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $35M | $43M | $10.27B | $9.16B | $89M |
IMA vs ARQT vs KO vs PEP vs SRZN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| ImageneBio Inc (IMA) | 100 | 1.6 | -98.4% |
| Arcutis Biotherapeu… (ARQT) | 100 | 84.3 | -15.7% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 156.7 | +56.7% |
| PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) | 100 | 102.0 | +2.0% |
| Surrozen, Inc. (SRZN) | 100 | 16.2 | -83.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: IMA vs ARQT vs KO vs PEP vs SRZN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
IMA ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.83, Low D/E 7.5%, current ratio 12.49x
- Beta 0.83, current ratio 12.49x
- Beta 0.83 vs ARQT's 1.45
ARQT is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 91.3%, EPS growth 88.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 367.3%
- 91.3% revenue growth vs IMA's -77.1%
KO has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 121.1% 10Y total return vs PEP's 82.3%
- PEG 2.26 vs PEP's 5.11
- 27.8% margin vs IMA's -56.7%
- 13.1% ROA vs SRZN's -329.2%
PEP is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 54 yrs, beta -0.11, yield 3.9%
- Better valuation composite
- 3.9% yield, 54-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
SRZN is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +148.8% vs IMA's -67.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 91.3% revenue growth vs IMA's -77.1% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs IMA's -56.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.83 vs ARQT's 1.45 | |
| Dividends | 3.9% yield, 54-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +148.8% vs IMA's -67.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs SRZN's -329.2% |
IMA vs ARQT vs KO vs PEP vs SRZN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
IMA vs ARQT vs KO vs PEP vs SRZN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories
PEP leads 1 • IMA leads 0 • ARQT leads 0 • SRZN leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PEP and IMA operate at a comparable scale, with $93.9B and $0 in trailing revenue. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to IMA's -56.7%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $416M | $49.3B | $93.9B | $7M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$53M | $6M | $15.5B | $14.3B | -$43M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$45M | -$2M | $13.7B | $8.2B | -$343M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$52M | $27M | $12.6B | $7.7B | -$34M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -29.1% | +90.9% | +61.7% | +54.1% | +99.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -60.6% | +0.8% | +29.3% | +12.2% | -5.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -56.7% | -0.6% | +27.8% | +8.8% | -45.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -59.8% | +6.5% | +25.5% | +8.2% | -4.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +60.1% | +12.1% | +5.6% | +4.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.3% | +55.0% | +18.2% | +66.7% | -56.8% |
Valuation Metrics
PEP leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 24.0x trailing earnings, PEP trades at a 12% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), KO offers better value at 2.43x vs PEP's 7.37x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $61M | $3.0B | $355.6B | $197.2B | $175M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $36M | $3.0B | $390.8B | $237.9B | $92M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.50x | -187.54x | 27.18x | 24.05x | -0.72x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 122.45x | 25.27x | 16.68x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x | 7.37x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 26.39x | 16.63x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 76.54x | 8.11x | 7.42x | 2.10x | 50.30x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.20x | 16.37x | 10.40x | 9.63x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 67.15x | 25.70x | — |
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 $-35 for IMA. ARQT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PEP's 2.43x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs IMA's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -35.2% | -1.4% | +41.1% | +40.1% | — |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -31.3% | -0.6% | +13.1% | +7.7% | -3.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -35.9% | -5.2% | +15.8% | +14.9% | — |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -35.6% | -4.3% | +17.3% | +16.1% | -64.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.08x | 0.03x | 1.33x | 2.43x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$25M | -$37M | $35.2B | $40.7B | -$83M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $35M | $43M | $10.3B | $9.2B | $89M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $10M | $6M | $45.5B | $49.9B | $7M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -560.22x | 2.08x | 10.70x | 10.34x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — KO and SRZN 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 $330 for IMA. Over the past 12 months, SRZN leads with a +148.8% total return vs IMA's -67.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SRZN at 35.6% vs IMA's -59.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -19.7% | -15.9% | +20.3% | +3.5% | +8.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -67.0% | +80.6% | +17.2% | +13.4% | +148.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -93.3% | +138.8% | +47.0% | -11.7% | +149.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.7% | -16.2% | +65.6% | +14.3% | -84.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.6% | +11.8% | +121.1% | +82.3% | -84.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -59.4% | +33.7% | +13.7% | -4.1% | +35.6% |
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 ARQT's 1.45 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 IMA's 30.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.83x | 1.45x | -0.20x | -0.11x | 1.25x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $18.00 | $31.77 | $84.04 | $171.48 | $35.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.36 | $12.72 | $65.35 | $127.60 | $8.00 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +30.2% | +76.7% | +98.3% | +84.1% | +66.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.8 | 66.4 | 60.6 | 41.6 | 41.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 432K | 1.5M | 12.7M | 6.0M | 111K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — KO and PEP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ARQT as "Buy", KO as "Buy", PEP as "Hold", SRZN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 79.6% upside for SRZN (target: $42) vs 4.2% for KO (target: $86). For income investors, PEP offers the higher dividend yield at 3.86% vs KO's 2.46%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $34.00 | $86.13 | $167.88 | $42.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 12 | 48 | 45 | 6 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.5% | +3.9% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 56 | 54 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 | $5.57 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +0.5% | 0.0% |
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). PEP leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
IMA vs ARQT vs KO vs PEP vs SRZN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc.
(ARQT) is the stronger pick with 91. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -77. 1% for ImageneBio Inc (IMA). PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) offers the better valuation at 24. 0x trailing P/E (16. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ARQT) a "Buy" — based on 12 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 — IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN?
On trailing P/E, PepsiCo, Inc.
(PEP) is the cheapest at 24. 0x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. On forward P/E, PepsiCo, Inc. is actually cheaper at 16. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Coca-Cola Company wins at 2. 26x versus PepsiCo, Inc. 's 5. 11x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN?
Over the past 5 years, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) delivered a total return of +65.
6%, compared to -96. 7% for ImageneBio Inc (IMA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: KO returned +121. 1% versus IMA's -98. 6%. 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 — IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. 's 1. 45β — meaning ARQT is approximately -823% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ARQT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 2% for PepsiCo, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc.
(ARQT) is pulling ahead at 91. 3% versus -77. 1% for ImageneBio Inc (IMA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 88. 8% year-over-year, compared to -954. 9% for ImageneBio Inc. Over a 3-year CAGR, ARQT leads at 367. 3% 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 — IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -69. 6% for Surrozen, 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 -60. 6% for IMA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ARQT leads at 90. 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.
07Is IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN 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, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 26x versus PepsiCo, Inc. 's 5. 11x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) trades at 16. 7x forward P/E versus 122. 5x for Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. — 105. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SRZN: 79. 6% to $42. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN?
In this comparison, PEP (3.
9% yield), KO (2. 5% yield) pay a dividend. IMA, ARQT, SRZN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is IMA or ARQT or KO or PEP or SRZN 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). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, ARQT: +11. 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.
10What are the main differences between IMA and ARQT and KO and PEP and SRZN?
These companies operate in different sectors (IMA (Healthcare) and ARQT (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and PEP (Consumer Defensive) and SRZN (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: IMA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ARQT is a small-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; PEP is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; SRZN is a small-cap quality compounder stock. KO, PEP pay a dividend while IMA, ARQT, SRZN 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.