Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
NBY vs CTXR vs PAHC vs MCK vs HSIC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Medical - Distribution
Medical - Distribution
NBY vs CTXR vs PAHC vs MCK vs HSIC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Distribution |
| Market Cap | $11M | $12M | $1.62B | $90.21B | $8.13B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3M | $0.00 | $1.46B | $403.43B | $13.18B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3M | $-37M | $92M | $4.76B | $398M |
| Gross Margin | 54.6% | — | 31.9% | 3.6% | 29.1% |
| Operating Margin | -273.0% | — | 11.6% | 1.5% | 5.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 13.1x | 16.7x | 13.2x |
| Total Debt | $2M | $2M | $762M | $8.61B | $3.69B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $430K | $4M | $68M | $3.98B | $156M |
NBY vs CTXR vs PAHC vs MCK vs HSIC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | Apr 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| NovaBay Pharmaceuti… (NBY) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| Citius Pharmaceutic… (CTXR) | 100 | 4.1 | -95.9% |
| Phibro Animal Healt… (PAHC) | 100 | 211.1 | +111.1% |
| McKesson Corporation (MCK) | 100 | 545.4 | +445.4% |
| Henry Schein, Inc. (HSIC) | 100 | 121.4 | +21.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NBY vs CTXR vs PAHC vs MCK vs HSIC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NBY carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and momentum.
- 114.6% margin vs CTXR's -0.1%
- +106.3% vs CTXR's -8.4%
- 93.0% ROA vs CTXR's -28.6%, ROIC -217.0% vs -39.5%
CTXR lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
PAHC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.35, yield 1.2%
- Rev growth 27.4%, EPS growth 18.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.2%
- Beta 1.35, yield 1.2%, current ratio 2.76x
- 27.4% revenue growth vs CTXR's -100.0%
MCK is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 339.0% 10Y total return vs PAHC's 113.5%
- PEG 0.43 vs HSIC's 4.20
HSIC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.72, Low D/E 76.9%, current ratio 1.38x
- Beta 0.72 vs CTXR's 2.63
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 27.4% revenue growth vs CTXR's -100.0% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 114.6% margin vs CTXR's -0.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.72 vs CTXR's 2.63 | |
| Dividends | 1.2% yield, vs MCK's 0.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +106.3% vs CTXR's -8.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 93.0% ROA vs CTXR's -28.6%, ROIC -217.0% vs -39.5% |
NBY vs CTXR vs PAHC vs MCK vs HSIC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NBY vs CTXR vs PAHC vs MCK vs HSIC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
PAHC leads in 2 of 6 categories
MCK leads 1 • NBY leads 0 • CTXR leads 0 • HSIC leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PAHC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCK and CTXR operate at a comparable scale, with $403.4B and $0 in trailing revenue. NBY is the more profitable business, keeping 114.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MCK's 1.2%. On growth, PAHC holds the edge at +20.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3M | $0 | $1.5B | $403.4B | $13.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$8M | -$38M | $220M | $6.8B | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3M | -$37M | $92M | $4.8B | $398M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$7M | -$27M | $47M | $6.0B | $561M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +54.6% | — | +31.9% | +3.6% | +29.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.7% | — | +11.6% | +1.5% | +5.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +114.6% | — | +6.3% | +1.2% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.5% | — | +3.2% | +1.5% | +4.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -78.7% | -100.0% | +20.9% | +6.0% | +7.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +63.3% | +74.1% | +7.4% | +37.0% | +14.9% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — MCK and HSIC each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 19.2x trailing earnings, MCK trades at a 43% valuation discount to PAHC's 33.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MCK offers better value at 0.43x vs HSIC's 6.87x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $11M | $12M | $1.6B | $90.2B | $8.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $13M | $9M | $2.3B | $94.9B | $11.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.74x | -0.19x | 33.61x | 19.19x | 21.66x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 13.10x | 16.66x | 13.25x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 4.50x | 0.43x | 6.87x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 14.83x | 15.27x | 10.90x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.16x | — | 1.25x | 0.22x | 0.62x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.09x | 5.70x | 11.63x | 1.80x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 38.76x | 14.66x | 14.18x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK delivers a 3.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $3 in annual profit, vs $-48 for CTXR. CTXR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PAHC's 2.67x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCK scores 7/9 vs NBY's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +198.5% | -48.3% | +30.8% | +3.0% | +8.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +93.0% | -28.6% | +6.7% | +5.7% | +3.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.2% | -39.5% | +9.8% | +74.5% | +7.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -2.2% | -46.2% | +12.0% | +43.1% | +9.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.02x | 2.67x | 1.10x | 0.77x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1M | -$3M | $694M | $4.6B | $3.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $430,000 | $4M | $68M | $4.0B | $156M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2M | $2M | $762M | $8.6B | $3.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -89.97x | -143.54x | 3.64x | 33.79x | 4.59x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PAHC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MCK five years ago would be worth $37,043 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13 for NBY. Over the past 12 months, NBY leads with a +106.3% total return vs CTXR's -8.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PAHC at 42.3% vs CTXR's -72.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -93.6% | -24.5% | +7.6% | -10.5% | -7.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +106.3% | -8.4% | +81.9% | +7.2% | +2.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.5% | -98.0% | +188.4% | +102.1% | -11.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | -98.9% | +57.5% | +270.4% | -14.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -99.9% | +113.5% | +339.0% | +5.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -67.4% | -72.9% | +42.3% | +26.4% | -3.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MCK and HSIC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MCK is the less volatile stock with a -0.02 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CTXR's 2.63 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. HSIC currently trades 79.3% from its 52-week high vs NBY's 1.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.51x | 2.63x | 1.35x | -0.02x | 0.72x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $99.75 | $2.48 | $60.08 | $999.00 | $89.29 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.11 | $0.57 | $19.17 | $637.00 | $61.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +1.9% | +25.8% | +66.6% | +73.7% | +79.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 42.5 | 40.2 | 32.0 | 21.0 | 34.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 603K | 758K | 315K | 782K | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PAHC and MCK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: PAHC as "Buy", MCK as "Buy", HSIC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 35.1% upside for MCK (target: $995) vs 20.6% for HSIC (target: $85). For income investors, PAHC offers the higher dividend yield at 1.19% vs MCK's 0.42%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | $49.00 | $994.86 | $85.43 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | 13 | 31 | 32 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +1.2% | +0.4% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 0 | 18 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $0.48 | $3.07 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +10.5% |
PAHC leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). MCK leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
NBY vs CTXR vs PAHC vs MCK vs HSIC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Phibro Animal Health Corporation (PAHC) is the stronger pick with 27.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 4% for NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NBY). McKesson Corporation (MCK) offers the better valuation at 19. 2x trailing P/E (16. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Phibro Animal Health Corporation (PAHC) 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 — NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC?
On trailing P/E, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the cheapest at 19.
2x versus Phibro Animal Health Corporation at 33. 6x. On forward P/E, Phibro Animal Health Corporation is actually cheaper at 13. 1x — 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: McKesson Corporation wins at 0. 43x versus Henry Schein, Inc. 's 4. 20x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC?
Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +270.
4%, compared to -99. 9% for NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NBY). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCK returned +339. 0% versus NBY's -100. 0%. 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 — NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
02β versus Citius Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 's 2. 63β — meaning CTXR is approximately -16163% more volatile than MCK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Citius Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (CTXR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 3% for Phibro Animal Health Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Phibro Animal Health Corporation (PAHC) is pulling ahead at 27.
4% versus -6. 4% for NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NBY). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Phibro Animal Health Corporation grew EPS 1883% year-over-year, compared to 7. 2% for Henry Schein, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MCK leads at 13. 4% 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 — NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC?
Phibro Animal Health Corporation (PAHC) is the more profitable company, earning 3.
7% net margin versus -73. 8% for NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. — meaning it keeps 3. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PAHC leads at 8. 5% versus -59. 7% for NBY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NBY leads at 66. 3%, 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 NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC 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, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 43x versus Henry Schein, Inc. 's 4. 20x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Phibro Animal Health Corporation (PAHC) trades at 13. 1x forward P/E versus 16. 7x for McKesson Corporation — 3. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MCK: 35. 1% to $994. 86.
08Which pays a better dividend — NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC?
In this comparison, PAHC (1.
2% yield), MCK (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. NBY, CTXR, HSIC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NBY or CTXR or PAHC or MCK or HSIC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
02), +339. 0% 10Y return). NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NBY) carries a higher beta of 2. 51 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MCK: +339. 0%, NBY: -100. 0%), 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 NBY and CTXR and PAHC and MCK and HSIC?
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: NBY is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CTXR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PAHC is a small-cap high-growth stock; MCK is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; HSIC is a small-cap quality compounder stock. PAHC pays a dividend while NBY, CTXR, MCK, HSIC 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.