Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - General
Drug Manufacturers - General
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $3.67B | $1712.35T | $277.34B | $358.42B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $69M | $0.00 | $64.93B | $61.16B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-122M | $-168M | $18.25B | $4.23B |
| Gross Margin | 89.4% | — | 74.2% | 70.2% |
| Operating Margin | -155.0% | — | 41.1% | 26.7% |
| Forward P/E | 17.5x | — | 21.9x | 14.3x |
| Total Debt | $122M | $22M | $50.53B | $69.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $176M | $194M | $14.56B | $5.23B |
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidia Corporation (LQDA) | 100 | 457.6 | +357.6% |
| DBV Technologies S.… (DBVT) | 100 | 41.2 | -58.8% |
| Merck & Co., Inc. (MRK) | 100 | 145.9 | +45.9% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 218.7 | +118.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LQDA is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +172.2% vs ABBV's +11.3%
DBVT lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MRK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Rev growth 1.2%, EPS growth 8.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.48, Low D/E 96.0%, current ratio 1.54x
- 28.1% margin vs LQDA's -176.0%
- 14.6% ROA vs DBVT's -89.0%
ABBV carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 0.34, yield 3.2%
- 295.5% 10Y total return vs LQDA's 280.9%
- Beta 0.34, yield 3.2%, current ratio 0.67x
- 8.6% revenue growth vs DBVT's -100.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.6% revenue growth vs DBVT's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.3x vs 21.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 28.1% margin vs LQDA's -176.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.34 vs DBVT's 1.26 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 13-year raise streak, vs MRK's 2.9%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +172.2% vs ABBV's +11.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 14.6% ROA vs DBVT's -89.0% |
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LQDA leads in 1 of 6 categories
DBVT leads 0 • MRK leads 0 • ABBV leads 0 • 5 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — LQDA and MRK and ABBV each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MRK and DBVT operate at a comparable scale, with $64.9B and $0 in trailing revenue. MRK is the more profitable business, keeping 28.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LQDA's -176.0%. On growth, LQDA holds the edge at +11.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $69M | $0 | $64.9B | $61.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$106M | -$112M | $32.4B | $24.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$122M | -$168M | $18.3B | $4.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$108M | -$151M | $12.4B | $18.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +89.4% | — | +74.2% | +70.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -155.0% | — | +41.1% | +26.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -176.0% | — | +28.1% | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -155.8% | — | +19.0% | +30.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.2% | — | +4.5% | +10.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +86.4% | +91.5% | -19.6% | +57.4% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — MRK and ABBV each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.4x trailing earnings, MRK trades at a 82% valuation discount to ABBV's 85.5x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MRK's 10.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ABBV's 15.0x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.7B | $1712.35T | $277.3B | $358.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.6B | $1712.35T | $313.3B | $422.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -25.47x | -0.76x | 15.42x | 85.50x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 17.54x | — | 21.93x | 14.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.73x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 10.68x | 14.96x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 262.27x | — | 4.27x | 5.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 43.06x | 0.66x | 5.35x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 22.44x | 20.12x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — DBVT and MRK and ABBV each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV delivers a 62.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $62 in annual profit, vs $-6 for LQDA. DBVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.13x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LQDA's 1.58x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ABBV scores 6/9 vs LQDA's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -5.5% | -130.2% | +36.1% | +62.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -44.2% | -89.0% | +14.6% | +3.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -5.0% | — | +22.0% | +23.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -84.1% | -145.7% | +23.8% | +21.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.58x | 0.13x | 0.96x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$54M | -$172M | $36.0B | $63.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $176M | $194M | $14.6B | $5.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $122M | $22M | $50.5B | $69.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -4.63x | -189.82x | 19.68x | 3.28x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LQDA leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LQDA five years ago would be worth $159,547 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,090 for DBVT. Over the past 12 months, LQDA leads with a +172.2% total return vs ABBV's +11.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LQDA at 77.2% vs MRK's 0.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +34.6% | +4.9% | +6.3% | -10.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +172.2% | +110.4% | +46.1% | +11.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +456.3% | +19.7% | +2.9% | +50.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1495.5% | -69.1% | +70.2% | +101.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +280.9% | -87.0% | +166.5% | +295.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +77.2% | +6.2% | +0.9% | +14.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LQDA and ABBV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABBV is the less volatile stock with a 0.34 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than DBVT's 1.26 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LQDA currently trades 90.6% from its 52-week high vs DBVT's 76.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.24x | 1.26x | 0.48x | 0.34x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $46.67 | $26.18 | $125.14 | $244.81 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $11.85 | $7.53 | $73.31 | $176.57 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +90.6% | +76.3% | +89.7% | +82.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 65.2 | 48.1 | 46.7 | 46.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.1M | 252K | 7.3M | 5.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MRK and ABBV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LQDA as "Buy", DBVT as "Buy", MRK as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 131.8% upside for DBVT (target: $46) vs 15.2% for MRK (target: $129). For income investors, ABBV offers the higher dividend yield at 3.24% vs MRK's 2.90%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $50.67 | $46.33 | $129.31 | $256.64 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 15 | 37 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.9% | +3.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 14 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $3.26 | $6.57 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.8% | +0.3% |
LQDA leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Total Returns. 5 categories are tied.
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the stronger pick with 8. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -20. 0% for Liquidia Corporation (LQDA). Merck & Co. , Inc. (MRK) offers the better valuation at 15. 4x trailing P/E (21. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Liquidia Corporation (LQDA) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV?
On trailing P/E, Merck & Co.
, Inc. (MRK) is the cheapest at 15. 4x versus AbbVie Inc. at 85. 5x. On forward P/E, AbbVie Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV?
Over the past 5 years, Liquidia Corporation (LQDA) delivered a total return of +1495%, compared to -69.
1% for DBV Technologies S. A. (DBVT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ABBV returned +295. 5% versus DBVT's -87. 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 — LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 34β versus DBV Technologies S. A. 's 1. 26β — meaning DBVT is approximately 272% more volatile than ABBV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, DBV Technologies S. A. (DBVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 158% for Liquidia Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is pulling ahead at 8. 6% versus -20. 0% for Liquidia Corporation (LQDA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Merck & Co. , Inc. grew EPS 8. 0% year-over-year, compared to -347. 5% for DBV Technologies S. A.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MRK leads at 3. 1% 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 — LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV?
Merck & Co.
, Inc. (MRK) is the more profitable company, earning 28. 1% net margin versus -931. 7% for Liquidia Corporation — meaning it keeps 28. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MRK leads at 36. 2% versus -866. 6% for LQDA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MRK leads at 72. 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 LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) trades at 14. 3x forward P/E versus 21. 9x for Merck & Co. , Inc. — 7. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for DBVT: 131. 8% to $46. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV?
In this comparison, ABBV (3.
2% yield), MRK (2. 9% yield) pay a dividend. LQDA, DBVT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 34), 3. 2% yield, +295. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABBV: +295. 5%, DBVT: -87. 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 LQDA and DBVT and MRK and ABBV?
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: LQDA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; DBVT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; MRK is a large-cap deep-value stock; ABBV is a large-cap income-oriented stock. MRK, ABBV pay a dividend while LQDA, DBVT 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.