Comprehensive Stock Comparison
Compare Molecular Partners AG (MOLN) vs Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc (CNTA) Stock
Analyze side-by-side fundamentals, valuation, growth, and profitability to decide which stock is the better buy.
Selected Stocks
Add up to 10 tickers. Use presets or search to get started.
Quick Verdict
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | MOLN | -29.4% revenue growth vs CNTA's -100.0% |
| Quality / Margins | MOLN | -10.9% net margin vs CNTA's -16.2% |
| Stability / Safety | MOLN | Beta 0.20 vs CNTA's 0.98, lower leverage |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | CNTA | +72.7% vs MOLN's -0.1% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | MOLN | -53.7% ROA vs CNTA's -54.1%, ROIC -47.6% vs -91.8% |
Who Each Stock Is For
Income & stability
Growth exposure
Long-term compounding (10Y)
Sleep-well-at-night portfolio
Defensive / Recession hedge
Business Model
What each company does and how it makes money
Molecular Partners is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops targeted protein therapeutics using its proprietary DARPin platform technology. It generates revenue primarily through research collaborations and licensing deals with pharmaceutical partners — including Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie — which provide upfront payments, milestone payments, and potential future royalties. The company's key competitive advantage is its DARPin platform, which enables the creation of multi-specific protein therapeutics with high target specificity and modular design capabilities.
Centessa Pharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel medicines for serious diseases. It generates revenue primarily through research collaborations and licensing agreements — though as a pre-commercial company, it currently relies on equity financing and partnerships to fund development. The company's competitive advantage lies in its asset-centric model — each program operates as an independent "company" with dedicated resources and accountability — and its LockBody platform technology designed to create targeted cancer therapies with reduced systemic toxicity.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Financial Metrics Comparison
Side-by-side fundamentals across 2 stocks. BestLagging
Financial Scorecard
MOLN leads in 3 of 6 categories (Financial Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). CNTA leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
Financial Metrics (TTM)
CNTA and MOLN operate at a comparable scale, with $15M and $0 in trailing revenue. MOLN is the more profitable business, keeping -10.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CNTA's -16.2%.
| Metric | MOLNMolecular Partner… | CNTACentessa Pharmace… |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $15M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$58M | -$213M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$60M | -$243M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$54M | -$181M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -8.6% | +100.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -12.3% | -14.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -10.9% | -16.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -12.1% | -12.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -100.0% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +34.7% | -10.8% |
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | MOLNMolecular Partner… | CNTACentessa Pharmace… |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $188M | $3.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $108M | $3.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.43x | -13.04x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 29.13x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.93x | 7.66x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
MOLN delivers a -63.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-63 in annual profit, vs $-80 for CNTA. MOLN carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CNTA's 0.29x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CNTA scores 3/9 vs MOLN's 2/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | MOLNMolecular Partner… | CNTACentessa Pharmace… |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -63.1% | -80.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -53.7% | -54.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -47.6% | -91.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -36.9% | -47.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.02x | 0.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$61M | -$266M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $64M | $383M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2M | $117M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -3345.44x | -20.50x |
Total Returns (with DRIP)
A $10,000 investment in CNTA five years ago would be worth $12,349 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,556 for MOLN. Over the past 12 months, CNTA leads with a +72.7% total return vs MOLN's -0.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CNTA at 96.9% vs MOLN's -7.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | MOLNMolecular Partner… | CNTACentessa Pharmace… |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +19.0% | +13.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -0.1% | +72.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.6% | +663.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -74.4% | +23.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -74.4% | +23.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -7.0% | +96.9% |
Risk & Volatility
MOLN is the less volatile stock with a 0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CNTA's 0.98 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MOLN currently trades 93.7% from its 52-week high vs CNTA's 87.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | MOLNMolecular Partner… | CNTACentessa Pharmace… |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.20x | 0.98x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.36 | $30.58 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.36 | $9.60 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.7% | +87.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.7 | 65.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 4K | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates MOLN as "Hold" and CNTA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 158.8% upside for MOLN (target: $13) vs 39.0% for CNTA (target: $37).
| Metric | MOLNMolecular Partner… | CNTACentessa Pharmace… |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $13.00 | $37.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Historical Charts
Charts are rendered on first load. Hover for details.
Chart 1Total Return — 5 Years (Rebased to 100)
| Stock | Jun 21 | Feb 26 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular Partners … (MOLN) | 100 | 23.26 | -76.7% |
| Centessa Pharmaceut… (CNTA) | 100 | 111.71 | +11.7% |
Centessa Pharmaceut… (CNTA) returned +23% over 5 years vs Molecular Partners … (MOLN)'s -74%. A $10,000 investment in CNTA 5 years ago would be worth $12,349 today (including dividends reinvested).
Chart 2Revenue Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2015 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular Partners … (MOLN) | $29M | $5M | -82.9% |
| Centessa Pharmaceut… (CNTA) | $0.00 | $0.00 | — |
Molecular Partners AG's revenue grew from $29M (2015) to $5M (2024) — a -17.8% CAGR.
Chart 3Net Margin Trend — 10 Years
| Stock | 2015 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular Partners … (MOLN) | -0.5% | -10.9% | -2027.5% |
| Centessa Pharmaceut… (CNTA) | -22.0% | -22.0% | +0.0% |
Molecular Partners AG's net margin went from -1% (2015) to -11% (2024).
Chart 4EPS Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2015 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular Partners … (MOLN) | -0.01 | -1.59 | -20821.1% |
| Centessa Pharmaceut… (CNTA) | -0.08 | -2.06 | -2551.2% |
Molecular Partners AG's EPS grew from $-0.01 (2015) to $-1.59 (2024).
Chart 5Free Cash Flow — 5 Years
Molecular Partners AG generated $-60M FCF in 2024 (+35% vs 2021). Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc generated $-142M FCF in 2024 (-4% vs 2021).
MOLN vs CNTA: Frequently Asked Questions
7 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MOLN or CNTA a better buy right now?
Analysts rate Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc (CNTA) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — MOLN or CNTA?
Over the past 5 years, Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc (CNTA) delivered a total return of +23.5%, compared to -74.4% for Molecular Partners AG (MOLN). A $10,000 investment in CNTA five years ago would be worth approximately $12K today (assuming dividends reinvested). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CNTA returned +23.5% versus MOLN's -74.4%. 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 — MOLN or CNTA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Molecular Partners AG (MOLN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.20β versus Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc's 0.98β — meaning CNTA is approximately 382% more volatile than MOLN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Molecular Partners AG (MOLN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 29% for Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which has better profit margins — MOLN or CNTA?
Molecular Partners AG (MOLN) is the more profitable company, earning -1087.4% net margin versus -1618.0% for Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc — meaning it keeps -1087.4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MOLN leads at -1231.7% versus -1425.3% for CNTA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CNTA 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.
05Which pays a better dividend — MOLN or CNTA?
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.
06Is MOLN or CNTA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Molecular Partners AG (MOLN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.20)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MOLN: -74.4%, CNTA: +23.5%), 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.
07What are the main differences between MOLN and CNTA?
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 beat both.