Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NEO vs CDNA vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
NEO vs CDNA vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $290M | $1.19B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $746M | $413M | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-99M | $-8M | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 42.1% | 48.2% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | -13.9% | -3.3% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 61.9x | 24.6x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $472M | $20M | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $160M | $65M | $10.27B |
NEO vs CDNA vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO) | 100 | 36.0 | -64.0% |
| CareDx, Inc (CDNA) | 100 | 64.8 | -35.2% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NEO vs CDNA vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NEO is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.37
- Rev growth 10.1%, EPS growth -35.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.6%
- +50.9% vs KO's +17.2%
CDNA has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.17, Low D/E 6.5%, current ratio 2.86x
- Beta 1.17, current ratio 2.86x
- 13.8% revenue growth vs KO's 1.9%
KO is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 121.1% 10Y total return vs CDNA's 388.7%
- 27.8% margin vs NEO's -13.3%
- 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 2 pay no meaningful dividend
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 13.8% revenue growth vs KO's 1.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (24.6x vs 25.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs NEO's -13.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.17 vs NEO's 1.37, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 2 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +50.9% vs KO's +17.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs NEO's -7.2%, ROIC 15.8% vs -4.3% |
NEO vs CDNA vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NEO vs CDNA vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO is the larger business by revenue, generating $49.3B annually — 119.4x CDNA's $413M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NEO's -13.3%. On growth, CDNA holds the edge at +39.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $746M | $413M | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$54M | $2M | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$99M | -$8M | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$5M | $65M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +42.1% | +48.2% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -13.9% | -3.3% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.3% | -2.0% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -0.7% | +15.8% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.1% | +39.0% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +35.0% | +126.3% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
CDNA leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, KO's 26.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than NEO's 345.5x.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $290M | $1.2B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $603M | $1.1B | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.65x | -57.42x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 61.94x | 24.59x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 345.49x | — | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.40x | 3.12x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.34x | 4.04x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 32.85x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-12 for NEO. CDNA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs CDNA's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -11.8% | -2.6% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.2% | -1.9% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -4.3% | -5.7% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -5.1% | -5.8% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.56x | 0.06x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $313M | -$46M | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $160M | $65M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $472M | $20M | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -30.15x | — | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CDNA leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in KO five years ago would be worth $16,560 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,538 for CDNA. Over the past 12 months, NEO leads with a +50.9% total return vs KO's +17.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CDNA at 40.4% vs NEO's -11.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.2% | +20.0% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +50.9% | +22.0% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -31.0% | +176.7% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -74.4% | -74.6% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.1% | +388.7% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -11.6% | +40.4% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NEO's 1.37 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs NEO's 81.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.37x | 1.17x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $13.74 | $24.13 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.72 | $10.96 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +81.1% | +95.2% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 70.8 | 64.3 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.9M | 694K | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NEO as "Buy", CDNA as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 70.4% upside for NEO (target: $19) vs 4.2% for KO (target: $86). KO is the only dividend payer here at 2.46% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $19.00 | $24.00 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 29 | 13 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +7.4% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CDNA leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns).
NEO vs CDNA vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NEO or CDNA or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, CareDx, Inc (CDNA) is the stronger pick with 13.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). The Coca-Cola Company (KO) offers the better valuation at 27. 2x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO) a "Buy" — based on 29 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 — NEO or CDNA or KO?
On forward P/E, CareDx, Inc is actually cheaper at 24.
6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NEO or CDNA or KO?
Over the past 5 years, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) delivered a total return of +65.
6%, compared to -74. 6% for CareDx, Inc (CDNA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CDNA returned +388. 7% versus NEO's +42. 1%. 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 — NEO or CDNA or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus NeoGenomics, Inc. 's 1. 37β — meaning NEO is approximately -785% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CareDx, Inc (CDNA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NEO or CDNA or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CareDx, Inc (CDNA) is pulling ahead at 13.
8% versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Coca-Cola Company grew EPS 23. 6% year-over-year, compared to -143. 0% for CareDx, Inc. Over a 3-year CAGR, NEO leads at 12. 6% 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 — NEO or CDNA or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -14. 9% for NeoGenomics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -9. 1% for NEO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CDNA leads at 67. 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 NEO or CDNA or KO more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, CareDx, Inc (CDNA) trades at 24.
6x forward P/E versus 61. 9x for NeoGenomics, Inc. — 37. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NEO: 70. 4% to $19. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NEO or CDNA or KO?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. NEO, CDNA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NEO or CDNA or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, NEO: +42. 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.
10What are the main differences between NEO and CDNA and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (NEO (Healthcare) and CDNA (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
KO pays a dividend while NEO, CDNA 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.