Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV vs JNJ
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - General
Drug Manufacturers - General
Drug Manufacturers - General
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV vs JNJ — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General | Drug Manufacturers - General | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $3.67B | $1712.35T | $277.34B | $358.42B | $536.23B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $69M | $0.00 | $64.93B | $61.16B | $92.15B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-122M | $-168M | $18.25B | $4.23B | $25.12B |
| Gross Margin | 89.4% | — | 74.2% | 70.2% | 68.1% |
| Operating Margin | -155.0% | — | 41.1% | 26.7% | 26.1% |
| Forward P/E | 17.6x | — | 21.9x | 14.3x | 19.2x |
| Total Debt | $122M | $22M | $50.53B | $69.07B | $36.63B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $176M | $194M | $14.56B | $5.23B | $24.11B |
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV vs JNJ — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidia Corporation (LQDA) | 100 | 458.7 | +358.7% |
| DBV Technologies S.… (DBVT) | 100 | 40.7 | -59.3% |
| Merck & Co., Inc. (MRK) | 100 | 144.7 | +44.7% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 217.5 | +117.5% |
| Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) | 100 | 148.8 | +48.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV vs JNJ
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LQDA ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +172.2% vs ABBV's +11.3%
Among these 5 stocks, DBVT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MRK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if valuation efficiency is your priority.
- PEG 1.03 vs JNJ's 34.17
- 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 growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 0.34, yield 3.2%
- Rev growth 8.6%, EPS growth -0.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 1.8%
- 295.5% 10Y total return vs LQDA's 280.9%
- Beta 0.34, yield 3.2%, current ratio 0.67x
JNJ is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.06, Low D/E 51.2%, current ratio 1.11x
- Beta 0.06 vs DBVT's 1.26
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 19.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 28.1% margin vs LQDA's -176.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.06 vs DBVT's 1.26 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 13-year raise streak, vs JNJ's 2.2%, (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 vs JNJ — 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 vs JNJ — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MRK leads in 1 of 6 categories
LQDA leads 1 • DBVT leads 0 • ABBV leads 0 • JNJ leads 0 • 4 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)
JNJ and DBVT operate at a comparable scale, with $92.1B 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 | $92.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$106M | -$112M | $32.4B | $24.5B | $31.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$122M | -$168M | $18.3B | $4.2B | $25.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$108M | -$151M | $12.4B | $18.7B | $19.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +89.4% | — | +74.2% | +70.2% | +68.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -155.0% | — | +41.1% | +26.7% | +26.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -176.0% | — | +28.1% | +6.9% | +27.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -155.8% | — | +19.0% | +30.6% | +20.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.2% | — | +4.5% | +10.0% | +6.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +86.4% | +91.5% | -19.6% | +57.4% | +91.0% |
Valuation Metrics
MRK leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.4x trailing earnings, MRK trades at a 82% valuation discount to ABBV's 85.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MRK offers better value at 0.73x vs JNJ's 34.17x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.7B | $1712.35T | $277.3B | $358.4B | $536.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.6B | $1712.35T | $313.3B | $422.3B | $548.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -25.47x | -0.76x | 15.42x | 85.50x | 38.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 17.58x | — | 21.93x | 14.28x | 19.20x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.73x | — | 34.17x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 10.68x | 14.96x | 18.61x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 262.27x | — | 4.27x | 5.86x | 6.04x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 43.06x | 0.66x | 5.35x | — | 7.56x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 22.44x | 20.12x | 27.02x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — DBVT 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% | +31.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -44.2% | -89.0% | +14.6% | +3.1% | +13.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -5.0% | — | +22.0% | +23.9% | +20.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -84.1% | -145.7% | +23.8% | +21.5% | +17.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.58x | 0.13x | 0.96x | — | 0.51x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$54M | -$172M | $36.0B | $63.8B | $12.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $176M | $194M | $14.6B | $5.2B | $24.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $122M | $22M | $50.5B | $69.1B | $36.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -4.63x | -189.82x | 19.68x | 3.28x | 48.23x |
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% | +7.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +172.2% | +110.4% | +46.1% | +11.3% | +44.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +456.3% | +19.7% | +2.9% | +50.4% | +46.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1495.5% | -69.1% | +70.2% | +101.3% | +46.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +280.9% | -87.0% | +166.5% | +295.5% | +132.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +77.2% | +6.2% | +0.9% | +14.6% | +13.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LQDA and JNJ each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
JNJ is the less volatile stock with a 0.06 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 | 1.17x | 1.26x | 0.45x | 0.28x | 0.04x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $46.67 | $26.18 | $125.14 | $244.81 | $251.71 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $11.85 | $7.53 | $73.31 | $176.57 | $146.12 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +90.6% | +76.3% | +89.7% | +82.8% | +88.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 65.2 | 48.1 | 46.7 | 46.8 | 37.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.1M | 252K | 7.3M | 5.8M | 7.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ABBV and JNJ each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LQDA as "Buy", DBVT as "Buy", MRK as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy", JNJ as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 131.8% upside for DBVT (target: $46) vs 12.0% for JNJ (target: $249). For income investors, ABBV offers the higher dividend yield at 3.24% vs JNJ's 2.19%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $55.00 | $46.33 | $129.31 | $256.64 | $249.27 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 15 | 37 | 41 | 40 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.9% | +3.2% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 14 | 13 | 36 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $3.26 | $6.57 | $4.87 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.8% | +0.3% | +0.5% |
MRK leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). LQDA leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
LQDA vs DBVT vs MRK vs ABBV vs JNJ: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV or JNJ 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 or JNJ?
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. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Merck & Co. , Inc. wins at 1. 03x versus Johnson & Johnson's 34. 17x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LQDA or DBVT or MRK or ABBV or JNJ?
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 +293. 8% versus DBVT's -87. 1%. 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 or JNJ?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
04β versus DBV Technologies S. A. 's 1. 26β — meaning DBVT is approximately 2707% more volatile than JNJ 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 or JNJ?
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, JNJ leads at 4. 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 or JNJ?
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 or JNJ 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, Merck & Co. , Inc. (MRK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 03x versus Johnson & Johnson's 34. 17x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. 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 or JNJ?
In this comparison, ABBV (3.
2% yield), MRK (2. 9% yield), JNJ (2. 2% 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 or JNJ better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
04), 2. 2% yield, +131. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (JNJ: +131. 3%, DBVT: -87. 1%), 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 and JNJ?
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; JNJ is a large-cap quality compounder stock. MRK, ABBV, JNJ 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.