Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MBX vs CYCN vs IMVT vs ARWR vs ABBV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - General
MBX vs CYCN vs IMVT vs ARWR vs ABBV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $1.83B | $13M | $5.88B | $10.18B | $356.49B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $2M | $0.00 | $622M | $61.16B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-80M | $-4M | $-464M | $-301M | $4.23B |
| Gross Margin | — | 100.0% | — | 88.1% | 70.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | -239.8% | — | -35.7% | 26.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | — | 14.2x |
| Total Debt | $171K | $0.00 | $98K | $366M | $69.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $49M | $3M | $714M | $227M | $5.23B |
MBX vs CYCN vs IMVT vs ARWR vs ABBV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| MBX Biosciences, In… (MBX) | 100 | 157.7 | +57.7% |
| Cyclerion Therapeut… (CYCN) | 100 | 119.7 | +19.7% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 101.5 | +1.5% |
| Arrowhead Pharmaceu… (ARWR) | 100 | 375.2 | +275.2% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 102.1 | +2.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MBX vs CYCN vs IMVT vs ARWR vs ABBV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MBX ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.33, Low D/E 0.1%, current ratio 24.19x
- Beta 1.33, current ratio 24.19x
CYCN lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, IMVT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
ARWR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 232.6%, EPS growth 99.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 50.5%
- 232.6% revenue growth vs MBX's -46.0%
- +448.5% vs CYCN's -1.9%
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 0.28, yield 3.3%
- 293.8% 10Y total return vs ARWR's 11.6%
- Better valuation composite
- 6.9% margin vs CYCN's -170.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 232.6% revenue growth vs MBX's -46.0% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.9% margin vs CYCN's -170.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.28 vs ARWR's 1.74 | |
| Dividends | 3.3% yield; 13-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +448.5% vs CYCN's -1.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.1% ROA vs IMVT's -44.1% |
MBX vs CYCN vs IMVT vs ARWR vs ABBV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
MBX vs CYCN vs IMVT vs ARWR vs ABBV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ABBV leads in 3 of 6 categories
ARWR leads 1 • MBX leads 0 • CYCN leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $61.2B and $0 in trailing revenue. ABBV is the more profitable business, keeping 6.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CYCN's -170.1%. On growth, ABBV holds the edge at +10.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $2M | $0 | $622M | $61.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$91M | -$5M | -$487M | -$203M | $24.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$80M | -$4M | -$464M | -$301M | $4.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$79M | -$3M | -$423M | -$51M | $18.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +100.0% | — | +88.1% | +70.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -2.4% | — | -35.7% | +26.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -170.1% | — | -48.4% | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -159.8% | — | -8.2% | +30.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -43.2% | — | -86.4% | +10.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -16.7% | -2.2% | +19.7% | -133.8% | +57.4% |
Valuation Metrics
ABBV leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, ABBV's 14.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ARWR's 84.4x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.8B | $13M | $5.9B | $10.2B | $356.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.8B | $10M | $5.2B | $10.3B | $420.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -22.14x | -2.84x | -10.60x | -5957.38x | 85.04x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | 14.17x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | 84.38x | 14.89x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 6.47x | — | 12.27x | 5.83x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 5.31x | 1.10x | 6.20x | 19.31x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 64.87x | 20.01x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV leads this category, winning 6 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 $-55 for ARWR. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ARWR's 0.73x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ARWR scores 6/9 vs CYCN's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -20.8% | -39.2% | -47.1% | -55.5% | +62.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -20.1% | -35.6% | -44.1% | -18.1% | +3.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -96.9% | -65.1% | — | +9.3% | +23.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -40.4% | -55.5% | -66.1% | +8.8% | +21.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.00x | — | 0.00x | 0.73x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$49M | -$3M | -$714M | $140M | $63.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $49M | $3M | $714M | $227M | $5.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $171,000 | $0 | $98,000 | $366M | $69.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | — | -1.03x | 3.28x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ARWR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ABBV five years ago would be worth $19,956 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $566 for CYCN. Over the past 12 months, ARWR leads with a +448.5% total return vs CYCN's -1.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ARWR at 21.6% vs CYCN's -19.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +34.1% | +131.3% | +11.7% | +7.2% | -10.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +249.8% | -1.9% | +102.4% | +448.5% | +12.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.2% | -47.6% | +49.8% | +79.7% | +49.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.2% | -94.3% | +84.4% | +10.0% | +99.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.2% | -98.8% | +190.9% | +1161.8% | +293.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +20.1% | -19.4% | +14.4% | +21.6% | +14.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — IMVT and ABBV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABBV is the less volatile stock with a 0.28 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ARWR's 1.74 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMVT currently trades 96.2% from its 52-week high vs CYCN's 36.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.33x | 0.98x | 1.36x | 1.74x | 0.28x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.89 | $8.48 | $30.09 | $79.48 | $244.81 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.43 | $1.03 | $13.36 | $12.44 | $176.57 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.3% | +36.6% | +96.2% | +91.4% | +82.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.6 | 53.9 | 50.6 | 66.3 | 43.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 520K | 5.5M | 1.4M | 1.9M | 5.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MBX as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", ARWR as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 57.2% upside for IMVT (target: $46) vs 13.3% for ARWR (target: $82). ABBV is the only dividend payer here at 3.26% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | — | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $55.33 | — | $45.50 | $82.33 | $256.69 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | — | 23 | 20 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +3.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $6.57 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.3% |
ABBV leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). ARWR leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
MBX vs CYCN vs IMVT vs ARWR vs ABBV: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR or ABBV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(ARWR) is the stronger pick with 232. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 7% for Cyclerion Therapeutics, Inc. (CYCN). AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) offers the better valuation at 85. 0x trailing P/E (14. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate MBX Biosciences, Inc. Common Stock (MBX) a "Buy" — based on 4 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 — MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR or ABBV?
Over the past 5 years, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) delivered a total return of +99. 6%, compared to -94. 3% for Cyclerion Therapeutics, Inc. (CYCN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ARWR returned +1162% versus CYCN's -98. 8%. 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 — MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR or ABBV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 28β versus Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 's 1. 74β — meaning ARWR is approximately 529% more volatile than ABBV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 73% for Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR or ABBV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(ARWR) is pulling ahead at 232. 6% versus 3. 7% for Cyclerion Therapeutics, Inc. (CYCN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. grew EPS 99. 8% year-over-year, compared to -81. 4% for MBX Biosciences, Inc. Common Stock. Over a 3-year CAGR, CYCN leads at 91. 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.
05Which has better profit margins — MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR or ABBV?
AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 9% net margin versus -170. 1% for Cyclerion Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ABBV leads at 32. 8% versus -239. 8% for CYCN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CYCN leads at 100. 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 MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR or ABBV more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IMVT: 57.
2% to $45. 50.
07Which pays a better dividend — MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR or ABBV?
In this comparison, ABBV (3.
3% yield) pays a dividend. MBX, CYCN, IMVT, ARWR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is MBX or CYCN or IMVT or ARWR 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. 28), 3. 3% yield, +293. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABBV: +293. 8%, MBX: +73. 2%), 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 MBX and CYCN and IMVT and ARWR 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: MBX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CYCN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ARWR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ABBV is a large-cap income-oriented stock. ABBV pays a dividend while MBX, CYCN, IMVT, ARWR 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.