Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MNPR vs TPVG vs CLDX vs HRZN vs IMVT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Biotechnology
Asset Management
Biotechnology
MNPR vs TPVG vs CLDX vs HRZN vs IMVT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Asset Management | Biotechnology | Asset Management | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $416M | $243M | $2.22B | $199M | $5.53B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $97M | $2M | $40M | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-19M | $-12M | $-259M | $28M | $-464M |
| Gross Margin | — | 83.5% | 100.0% | 18.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | — | 77.9% | -191.6% | -4.0% | — |
| Forward P/E | — | 6.5x | — | 6.1x | — |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $469M | $2M | $473M | $98K |
| Cash & Equiv. | $46M | $20M | $29M | $106M | $714M |
MNPR vs TPVG vs CLDX vs HRZN vs IMVT — 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% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 59.8 | -40.2% |
| Celldex Therapeutic… (CLDX) | 100 | 1247.9 | +1147.9% |
| Horizon Technology … (HRZN) | 100 | 41.4 | -58.6% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 106.1 | +6.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MNPR vs TPVG vs CLDX vs HRZN vs IMVT
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%
TPVG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and bank quality.
- Rev growth 36.6%, EPS growth 48.8%
- NIM 7.4% vs HRZN's 7.1%
- 50.6% margin vs CLDX's -172.5%
Among these 5 stocks, CLDX doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
HRZN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 27.8%
- PEG 0.26 vs TPVG's 6.41
- Beta 0.70, yield 27.8%, current ratio 1.24x
- Better valuation composite
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 173.6% 10Y total return vs TPVG's 93.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.37, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- +96.1% vs HRZN's -23.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 1.9K% revenue growth vs CLDX's -78.6% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 50.6% margin vs CLDX's -172.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs CLDX's 1.73 | |
| Dividends | 27.8% yield, vs TPVG's 17.1%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +96.1% vs HRZN's -23.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.6% ROA vs IMVT's -44.1% |
MNPR vs TPVG vs CLDX vs HRZN vs IMVT — 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.
Segment breakdown not available.
MNPR vs TPVG vs CLDX vs HRZN vs IMVT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HRZN leads in 3 of 6 categories
TPVG leads 1 • MNPR leads 1 • CLDX leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TPVG leads this category, winning 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TPVG and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $97M and $0 in trailing revenue. TPVG is the more profitable business, keeping 50.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CLDX's -172.5%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $97M | $2M | $40M | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$20M | -$22M | -$284M | $19M | -$487M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$19M | -$12M | -$259M | $28M | -$464M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$11M | $35M | -$213M | $67M | -$423M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +83.5% | +100.0% | +18.0% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +77.9% | -191.6% | -4.0% | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +50.6% | -172.5% | -6.6% | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -58.7% | -142.2% | +141.5% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | -93.6% | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.4% | -2.3% | -73.2% | -29.6% | +19.7% |
Valuation Metrics
HRZN leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.3x trailing earnings, HRZN trades at a 13% valuation discount to TPVG's 4.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HRZN offers better value at 0.18x vs TPVG's 4.84x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $416M | $243M | $2.2B | $199M | $5.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $370M | $691M | $2.2B | $567M | $4.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -45.90x | 4.91x | -8.54x | 4.30x | -9.97x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 6.50x | — | 6.10x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.84x | — | 0.18x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 9.13x | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.50x | 1477.19x | 4.97x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 13.03x | 0.68x | 4.20x | 0.60x | 5.83x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 3.51x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
HRZN leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HRZN delivers a 9.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $-47 for IMVT. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HRZN's 1.49x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TPVG scores 5/9 vs IMVT's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -25.7% | -3.4% | -41.7% | +9.0% | -47.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -24.8% | -1.5% | -38.9% | +3.6% | -44.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -3.2% | +7.2% | -35.2% | -0.2% | — |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -53.3% | +9.4% | -44.7% | -0.2% | -66.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.33x | 0.00x | 1.49x | 0.00x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$46M | $449M | -$27M | $368M | -$714M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $46M | $20M | $29M | $106M | $714M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $469M | $2M | $473M | $98,000 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -1.02x | — | 0.60x | — |
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 $6,724 for HRZN. Over the past 12 months, IMVT leads with a +96.1% total return vs HRZN's -23.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MNPR at 132.0% vs HRZN's -10.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.4% | -6.3% | +23.4% | -26.7% | +5.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +59.7% | +19.3% | +76.2% | -23.2% | +96.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1148.6% | -3.4% | -0.1% | -27.7% | +40.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +136.5% | -13.5% | +22.0% | -32.8% | +62.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -52.9% | +93.3% | -43.3% | +52.9% | +173.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +132.0% | -1.2% | -0.0% | -10.3% | +12.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CLDX and HRZN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HRZN is the less volatile stock with a 0.70 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CLDX's 1.73 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 HRZN's 53.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.46x | 0.83x | 1.73x | 0.70x | 1.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $105.00 | $7.53 | $35.79 | $8.46 | $30.09 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $28.40 | $4.48 | $17.85 | $3.80 | $13.36 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +59.5% | +79.5% | +93.1% | +53.3% | +90.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 68.1 | 58.3 | 60.7 | 58.5 | 60.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 173K | 504K | 985K | 1.2M | 1.4M |
Analyst Outlook
HRZN leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MNPR as "Buy", TPVG as "Hold", CLDX as "Buy", HRZN as "Hold", IMVT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 90.6% upside for MNPR (target: $119) vs 35.1% for CLDX (target: $45). For income investors, HRZN offers the higher dividend yield at 27.80% vs TPVG's 17.11%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $119.00 | $8.95 | $45.00 | $6.50 | $45.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 12 | 19 | 22 | 23 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +17.1% | — | +27.8% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.02 | — | $1.25 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
HRZN leads in 3 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). TPVG leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 1 tied.
MNPR vs TPVG vs CLDX vs HRZN vs IMVT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the stronger pick with 36. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -78. 6% for Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (CLDX). Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) offers the better valuation at 4. 3x trailing P/E (6. 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 has the better valuation — MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT?
On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.
3x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. at 4. 9x. On forward P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation is actually cheaper at 6. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation wins at 0. 26x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 41x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT?
Over the past 5 years, Monopar Therapeutics Inc.
(MNPR) delivered a total return of +136. 5%, compared to -32. 8% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +173. 6% versus MNPR's -52. 9%. 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 — MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
70β versus Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. 's 1. 73β — meaning CLDX is approximately 146% more volatile than HRZN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 149% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is pulling ahead at 36. 6% versus -78. 6% for Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (CLDX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation grew EPS 756. 3% year-over-year, compared to -134. 5% for Monopar Therapeutics Inc.. 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 — MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT?
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the more profitable company, earning 50. 6% net margin versus -172. 5% for Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 50. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TPVG leads at 77. 9% 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.
07Is MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT 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, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 26x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 41x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) trades at 6. 1x forward P/E versus 6. 5x for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. — 0. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MNPR: 90. 6% to $119. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT?
In this comparison, HRZN (27.
8% yield), TPVG (17. 1% yield) pay a dividend. MNPR, CLDX, IMVT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is MNPR or TPVG or CLDX or HRZN or IMVT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
70), 27. 8% yield). Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (CLDX) carries a higher beta of 1. 73 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (HRZN: +52. 9%, CLDX: -43. 3%), 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 MNPR and TPVG and CLDX and HRZN and IMVT?
These companies operate in different sectors (MNPR (Healthcare) and TPVG (Financial Services) and CLDX (Unknown) and HRZN (Financial Services) and IMVT (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: MNPR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; CLDX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HRZN is a small-cap high-growth stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock. TPVG, HRZN pay a dividend while MNPR, CLDX, IMVT 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.
- Sector: Financial Services
- Market Cap > $100B
- Revenue Growth > 8%
- Dividend Yield > 11.1%
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.