Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
IMRX vs PRTA vs KO vs ARQT vs RCUS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
IMRX vs PRTA vs KO vs ARQT vs RCUS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $152M | $432M | $355.61B | $3.05B | $2.40B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $58M | $49.28B | $416M | $236M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-54M | $-151M | $13.70B | $-2M | $-369M |
| Gross Margin | — | 46.8% | 61.7% | 90.9% | 90.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | -217.9% | 29.3% | 0.8% | -168.6% |
| Forward P/E | — | 176.7x | 25.3x | 122.5x | — |
| Total Debt | $4M | $14M | $45.49B | $6M | $99M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $129M | $308M | $10.27B | $43M | $222M |
IMRX vs PRTA vs KO vs ARQT vs RCUS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immuneering Corpora… (IMRX) | 100 | 23.8 | -76.2% |
| Prothena Corporatio… (PRTA) | 100 | 16.5 | -83.5% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 144.9 | +44.9% |
| Arcutis Biotherapeu… (ARQT) | 100 | 104.5 | +4.5% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 75.8 | -24.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: IMRX vs PRTA vs KO vs ARQT vs RCUS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
IMRX is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- beta 1.33
- Lower volatility, beta 1.33, Low D/E 1.8%, current ratio 17.50x
- Beta 1.33, current ratio 17.50x
- Beta 1.33 vs RCUS's 2.00, lower leverage
Among these 5 stocks, PRTA doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding.
- 121.1% 10Y total return vs RCUS's 40.0%
- Better valuation composite
- 27.8% margin vs PRTA's -260.9%
- 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
ARQT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 91.3%, EPS growth 88.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 367.3%
- 91.3% revenue growth vs PRTA's -92.8%
RCUS is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +154.5% vs KO's +17.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 91.3% revenue growth vs PRTA's -92.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs PRTA's -260.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.33 vs RCUS's 2.00, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +154.5% vs KO's +17.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs PRTA's -42.3%, ROIC 15.8% vs -21.0% |
IMRX vs PRTA vs KO vs ARQT vs RCUS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
IMRX vs PRTA vs KO vs ARQT vs RCUS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 5 of 6 categories
IMRX leads 0 • PRTA leads 0 • ARQT leads 0 • RCUS leads 0
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)
KO and IMRX operate at a comparable scale, with $49.3B and $0 in trailing revenue. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PRTA's -2.6%. On growth, PRTA holds the edge at +17.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $58M | $49.3B | $416M | $236M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$58M | -$124M | $15.5B | $6M | -$391M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$54M | -$151M | $13.7B | -$2M | -$369M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$50M | -$81M | $12.6B | $27M | -$489M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +46.8% | +61.7% | +90.9% | +90.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -2.2% | +29.3% | +0.8% | -168.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -2.6% | +27.8% | -0.6% | -156.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -140.6% | +25.5% | +6.5% | -2.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +17.1% | +12.1% | +60.1% | -39.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +50.0% | +153.6% | +18.2% | +55.0% | +10.5% |
Valuation Metrics
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $152M | $432M | $355.6B | $3.0B | $2.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $27M | $138M | $390.8B | $3.0B | $2.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.30x | -1.82x | 27.18x | -187.54x | -7.23x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 176.66x | 25.27x | 122.45x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 26.39x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 44.60x | 7.42x | 8.11x | 9.70x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.84x | 1.58x | 10.40x | 16.37x | 4.05x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 67.15x | — | — |
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 $-69 for RCUS. IMRX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -0.1% | -49.9% | +41.1% | -1.4% | -69.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.1% | -42.3% | +13.1% | -0.6% | -35.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -86.4% | -21.0% | +15.8% | -5.2% | -64.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -44.5% | -47.0% | +17.3% | -4.3% | -42.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.02x | 0.05x | 1.33x | 0.03x | 0.16x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$125M | -$294M | $35.2B | -$37M | -$123M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $129M | $308M | $10.3B | $43M | $222M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4M | $14M | $45.5B | $6M | $99M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 10.70x | 2.08x | -13.38x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
KO leads this category, winning 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 $1,731 for PRTA. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +154.5% total return vs KO's +17.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ARQT at 33.7% vs PRTA's -51.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -36.7% | -10.3% | +20.3% | -15.9% | +2.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +113.8% | +62.7% | +17.2% | +80.6% | +154.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -57.6% | -88.7% | +47.0% | +138.8% | +18.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.2% | -82.7% | +65.6% | -16.2% | -3.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.2% | -82.0% | +121.1% | +11.8% | +40.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -24.9% | -51.7% | +13.7% | +33.7% | +5.8% |
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 RCUS's 2.00 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 IMRX's 41.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.33x | 1.50x | -0.20x | 1.45x | 2.00x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.08 | $11.80 | $84.04 | $31.77 | $28.72 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.66 | $4.95 | $65.35 | $12.72 | $7.91 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +41.6% | +69.9% | +98.3% | +76.7% | +82.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.1 | 35.6 | 60.6 | 66.4 | 46.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.4M | 447K | 12.7M | 1.5M | 1.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: IMRX as "Buy", PRTA as "Buy", KO as "Buy", ARQT as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 186.4% upside for IMRX (target: $12) vs 4.2% for KO (target: $86). KO is the only dividend payer here at 2.46% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $12.00 | $19.00 | $86.13 | $34.00 | $31.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 28 | 48 | 12 | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 56 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
KO leads in 5 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Valuation Metrics.
IMRX vs PRTA vs KO vs ARQT vs RCUS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS 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 -92. 8% for Prothena Corporation plc (PRTA). The Coca-Cola Company (KO) offers the better valuation at 27. 2x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Immuneering Corporation (IMRX) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS?
On forward P/E, The Coca-Cola Company is actually cheaper at 25.
3x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS?
Over the past 5 years, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) delivered a total return of +65.
6%, compared to -82. 7% for Prothena Corporation plc (PRTA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: KO returned +121. 1% versus PRTA's -82. 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 — IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 2. 00β — meaning RCUS is approximately -1098% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immuneering Corporation (IMRX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc.
(ARQT) is pulling ahead at 91. 3% versus -92. 8% for Prothena Corporation plc (PRTA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 88. 8% year-over-year, compared to -99. 6% for Prothena Corporation plc. 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 — IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -25. 2% for Prothena Corporation plc — 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 -1905. 8% for PRTA. 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 IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) trades at 25.
3x forward P/E versus 176. 7x for Prothena Corporation plc — 151. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IMRX: 186. 4% to $12. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. IMRX, PRTA, ARQT, RCUS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is IMRX or PRTA or KO or ARQT or RCUS 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). Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS) carries a higher beta of 2. 00 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, RCUS: +40. 0%), 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 IMRX and PRTA and KO and ARQT and RCUS?
These companies operate in different sectors (IMRX (Healthcare) and PRTA (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and ARQT (Healthcare) and RCUS (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: IMRX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PRTA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; ARQT is a small-cap high-growth stock; RCUS is a small-cap quality compounder stock. KO pays a dividend while IMRX, PRTA, ARQT, 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.