Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
IMNM vs IMVT vs RCUS vs AGEN vs FATE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
IMNM vs IMVT vs RCUS vs AGEN vs FATE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $2.63B | $5.83B | $2.62B | $137M | $264M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $7M | $0.00 | $236M | $114M | $7M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-212M | $-464M | $-369M | $115K | $-136M |
| Gross Margin | — | — | 90.7% | 35.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | -32.3% | — | -168.6% | -17.7% | -22.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | 1.9x | — |
| Total Debt | $4M | $98K | $99M | $10M | $78M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $653M | $714M | $222M | $3M | $47M |
IMNM vs IMVT vs RCUS vs AGEN vs FATE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunome, Inc. (IMNM) | 100 | 205.0 | +105.0% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 65.7 | -34.3% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 119.3 | +19.3% |
| Agenus Inc. (AGEN) | 100 | 5.3 | -94.7% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 5.2 | -94.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: IMNM vs IMVT vs RCUS vs AGEN vs FATE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
IMNM lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
IMVT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- beta 1.37
- 188.1% 10Y total return vs IMNM's 73.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.37, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- Beta 1.37, current ratio 11.16x
RCUS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +220.2% vs AGEN's +31.0%
AGEN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 10.4%, EPS growth 100.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 5.2%
- 10.4% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2%
- 0.1% ROA vs IMNM's -52.4%
Among these 5 stocks, FATE doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.4% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.2% margin vs IMNM's -30.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.37 vs AGEN's 2.72 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +220.2% vs AGEN's +31.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 0.1% ROA vs IMNM's -52.4% |
IMNM vs IMVT vs RCUS vs AGEN vs FATE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
IMNM vs IMVT vs RCUS vs AGEN vs FATE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AGEN leads in 2 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 2 • IMNM leads 0 • RCUS leads 0 • FATE leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AGEN leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RCUS and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $236M and $0 in trailing revenue. AGEN is the more profitable business, keeping 0.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to IMNM's -30.6%. On growth, AGEN holds the edge at +27.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $7M | $0 | $236M | $114M | $7M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$224M | -$487M | -$391M | -$10M | -$148M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$212M | -$464M | -$369M | $115,000 | -$136M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$201M | -$423M | -$489M | -$159M | -$88M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | +90.7% | +35.7% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -32.3% | — | -168.6% | -17.7% | -22.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -30.6% | — | -156.4% | +0.1% | -20.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -28.9% | — | -2.1% | -139.1% | -13.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -100.0% | — | -39.3% | +27.5% | -26.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +40.6% | +19.7% | +10.5% | +85.3% | +38.6% |
Valuation Metrics
AGEN leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.6B | $5.8B | $2.6B | $137M | $264M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.0B | $5.1B | $2.5B | $145M | $295M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -9.58x | -10.50x | -7.90x | -1144.12x | -1.99x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | 1.85x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 379.28x | — | 10.60x | 1.20x | 39.75x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.20x | 6.14x | 4.43x | — | 1.31x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
IMVT leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IMVT delivers a -47.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-47 in annual profit, vs $-69 for RCUS. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FATE's 0.38x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AGEN scores 6/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -57.6% | -47.1% | -69.0% | — | -65.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -52.4% | -44.1% | -35.3% | +0.1% | -42.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -12.3% | — | -64.1% | — | -36.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -54.4% | -66.1% | -42.1% | — | -43.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.01x | 0.00x | 0.16x | — | 0.38x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$650M | -$714M | -$123M | $7M | $31M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $653M | $714M | $222M | $3M | $47M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4M | $98,000 | $99M | $10M | $78M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | -13.38x | 1.11x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — IMNM and IMVT each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IMVT five years ago would be worth $17,386 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $299 for FATE. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +220.2% total return vs AGEN's +31.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMNM at 59.3% vs AGEN's -50.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +11.8% | +10.7% | +11.6% | +20.4% | +131.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +205.0% | +107.2% | +220.2% | +31.0% | +139.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +304.0% | +48.4% | +31.0% | -87.8% | -58.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +3.4% | +73.9% | -13.7% | -93.1% | -97.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.0% | +188.1% | +52.9% | -93.5% | +33.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +59.3% | +14.1% | +9.4% | -50.4% | -25.1% |
Risk & Volatility
IMVT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IMVT is the less volatile stock with a 1.37 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AGEN's 2.72 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMVT currently trades 95.3% from its 52-week high vs AGEN's 53.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.08x | 1.37x | 1.95x | 2.72x | 2.17x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $27.65 | $30.09 | $28.72 | $7.34 | $2.41 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.15 | $13.36 | $7.06 | $2.71 | $0.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +84.2% | +95.3% | +90.5% | +53.0% | +95.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 52.9 | 55.7 | 60.9 | 54.7 | 85.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.1M | 1.4M | 1.2M | 800K | 1.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: IMNM as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy", AGEN as "Buy", FATE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1624.9% upside for FATE (target: $40) vs 15.4% for RCUS (target: $30).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $36.83 | $45.50 | $30.00 | $7.33 | $39.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 23 | 18 | 11 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.1% | 0.0% |
AGEN leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). IMVT leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Risk & Volatility). 1 tied.
IMNM vs IMVT vs RCUS vs AGEN vs FATE: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Agenus Inc.
(AGEN) is the stronger pick with 10. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Analysts rate Immunome, Inc. (IMNM) 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 is the better long-term investment — IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +73. 9%, compared to -97. 0% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +188. 1% versus AGEN's -93. 5%. 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 — IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 37β versus Agenus Inc. 's 2. 72β — meaning AGEN is approximately 98% more volatile than IMVT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 38% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Agenus Inc.
(AGEN) is pulling ahead at 10. 4% versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Agenus Inc. grew EPS 100. 0% year-over-year, compared to -45. 2% for Immunovant, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RCUS leads at 30. 2% 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 — IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE?
Agenus Inc.
(AGEN) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 1% net margin versus -30. 6% for Immunome, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IMVT leads at 0. 0% versus -32. 3% for IMNM. 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.
06Is IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FATE: 1624.
9% to $39. 50.
07Which pays a better dividend — IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
08Is IMNM or IMVT or RCUS or AGEN or FATE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+188. 1% 10Y return). Agenus Inc. (AGEN) carries a higher beta of 2. 72 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IMVT: +188. 1%, AGEN: -93. 5%), 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 IMNM and IMVT and RCUS and AGEN and FATE?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
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.