Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MNPR vs CLDX vs IMVT vs NKTR vs IQV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
MNPR vs CLDX vs IMVT vs NKTR vs IQV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Medical - Diagnostics & Research |
| Market Cap | $416M | $2.22B | $5.53B | $1.69B | $30.32B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $2M | $0.00 | $55M | $16.63B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-19M | $-259M | $-464M | $-164M | $1.39B |
| Gross Margin | — | 100.0% | — | 99.6% | 26.1% |
| Operating Margin | — | -191.6% | — | -237.9% | 13.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | — | 14.1x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $2M | $98K | $149M | $16.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $46M | $29M | $714M | $15M | $1.98B |
MNPR vs CLDX vs IMVT vs NKTR vs IQV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monopar Therapeutic… (MNPR) | 100 | 162.2 | +62.2% |
| Celldex Therapeutic… (CLDX) | 100 | 1247.9 | +1147.9% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 106.1 | +6.1% |
| Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) | 100 | 25.6 | -74.4% |
| IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) | 100 | 119.5 | +19.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MNPR vs CLDX vs IMVT vs NKTR vs IQV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MNPR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth is your priority.
- 1.9K% revenue growth vs CLDX's -78.6%
CLDX lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 173.6% 10Y total return vs MNPR's -52.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.37, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- Beta 1.37, current ratio 11.16x
NKTR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +8.2% vs IQV's +16.5%
IQV carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 1.33
- Rev growth 5.9%, EPS growth 4.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.2%
- 8.3% margin vs CLDX's -172.5%
- Beta 1.33 vs NKTR's 1.85
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 1.9K% revenue growth vs CLDX's -78.6% | |
| Quality / Margins | 8.3% margin vs CLDX's -172.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.33 vs NKTR's 1.85 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +8.2% vs IQV's +16.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.7% ROA vs NKTR's -62.8%, ROIC 8.7% vs -57.2% |
MNPR vs CLDX vs IMVT vs NKTR vs IQV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
MNPR vs CLDX vs IMVT vs NKTR vs IQV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IQV leads in 2 of 6 categories
MNPR leads 1 • CLDX leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • NKTR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IQV leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IQV and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $16.6B and $0 in trailing revenue. IQV is the more profitable business, keeping 8.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CLDX's -172.5%. On growth, IQV holds the edge at +8.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $2M | $0 | $55M | $16.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$20M | -$284M | -$487M | -$130M | $3.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$19M | -$259M | -$464M | -$164M | $1.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$11M | -$213M | -$423M | -$209M | $2.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +100.0% | — | +99.6% | +26.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -191.6% | — | -2.4% | +13.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -172.5% | — | -3.0% | +8.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -142.2% | — | -3.8% | +16.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -93.6% | — | -25.3% | +8.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.4% | -73.2% | +19.7% | -4.5% | +15.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — MNPR and CLDX and IQV each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $416M | $2.2B | $5.5B | $1.7B | $30.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $370M | $2.2B | $4.8B | $1.8B | $44.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -45.90x | -8.54x | -9.97x | -8.57x | 22.79x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | 14.06x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | 0.56x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — | 12.97x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 1477.19x | — | 30.64x | 1.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 13.03x | 4.20x | 5.83x | 15.66x | 4.67x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | 14.78x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IQV leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IQV delivers a 22.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $22 in annual profit, vs $-4 for NKTR. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to IQV's 2.44x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MNPR scores 4/9 vs NKTR's 2/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -25.7% | -41.7% | -47.1% | -4.0% | +22.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -24.8% | -38.9% | -44.1% | -62.8% | +4.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -3.2% | -35.2% | — | -57.2% | +8.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -53.3% | -44.7% | -66.1% | -55.7% | +11.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.00x | 0.00x | 1.66x | 2.44x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$46M | -$27M | -$714M | $134M | $14.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $46M | $29M | $714M | $15M | $2.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $2M | $98,000 | $149M | $16.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | — | -4.74x | 3.10x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MNPR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MNPR five years ago would be worth $23,648 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,765 for NKTR. Over the past 12 months, NKTR leads with a +818.2% total return vs IQV's +16.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MNPR at 132.0% vs IQV's -2.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.4% | +23.4% | +5.1% | +92.0% | -20.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +59.7% | +76.2% | +96.1% | +818.2% | +16.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1148.6% | -0.1% | +40.9% | +621.8% | -5.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +136.5% | +22.0% | +62.4% | -72.3% | -23.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -52.9% | -43.3% | +173.6% | -59.1% | +166.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +132.0% | -0.0% | +12.1% | +93.3% | -2.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CLDX and IQV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IQV is the less volatile stock with a 1.33 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NKTR's 1.85 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CLDX currently trades 93.1% from its 52-week high vs MNPR's 59.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.46x | 1.73x | 1.37x | 1.85x | 1.33x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $105.00 | $35.79 | $30.09 | $109.00 | $247.05 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $28.40 | $17.85 | $13.36 | $7.99 | $134.65 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +59.5% | +93.1% | +90.5% | +76.5% | +72.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 68.1 | 60.7 | 60.2 | 53.4 | 58.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 173K | 985K | 1.4M | 991K | 1.6M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MNPR as "Buy", CLDX as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", NKTR as "Buy", IQV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 90.6% upside for MNPR (target: $119) vs 26.3% for IQV (target: $226).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $119.00 | $45.00 | $45.50 | $132.83 | $225.63 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 19 | 23 | 33 | 44 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +4.1% |
IQV leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). MNPR leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
MNPR vs CLDX vs IMVT vs NKTR vs IQV: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, IQVIA Holdings Inc.
(IQV) is the stronger pick with 5. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -78. 6% for Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (CLDX). IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) offers the better valuation at 22. 8x trailing P/E (14. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Monopar Therapeutics Inc. (MNPR) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 — MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV?
Over the past 5 years, Monopar Therapeutics Inc.
(MNPR) delivered a total return of +136. 5%, compared to -72. 3% for Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +173. 6% versus NKTR's -59. 1%. 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 — MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), IQVIA Holdings Inc.
(IQV) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 33β versus Nektar Therapeutics's 1. 85β — meaning NKTR is approximately 39% more volatile than IQV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 2% for IQVIA Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), IQVIA Holdings Inc.
(IQV) is pulling ahead at 5. 9% versus -78. 6% for Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (CLDX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: IQVIA Holdings Inc. grew EPS 4. 7% year-over-year, compared to -134. 5% for Monopar Therapeutics Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IQV leads at 4. 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 — MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV?
IQVIA Holdings Inc.
(IQV) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 3% net margin versus -172. 5% for Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IQV leads at 14. 0% versus -191. 6% for CLDX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CLDX 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 MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MNPR: 90.
6% to $119. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV?
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 MNPR or CLDX or IMVT or NKTR or IQV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, IQVIA Holdings Inc.
(IQV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+166. 5% 10Y return). Nektar Therapeutics (NKTR) carries a higher beta of 1. 85 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IQV: +166. 5%, NKTR: -59. 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.
09What are the main differences between MNPR and CLDX and IMVT and NKTR and IQV?
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.