NEO vs TMO vs A vs BIO vs ILMN

For growth investors, NeoGenomics, Inc.

(NEO) is the stronger pick with 10. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (BIO) offers the better valuation at 10. 3x trailing P/E (31. 6x 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.

On trailing P/E, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.

(BIO) is the cheapest at 10. 3x versus Illumina, Inc. at 29. 5x. On forward P/E, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. is actually cheaper at 18. 9x — 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: Agilent Technologies, Inc. wins at 1. 46x versus Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 's 8. 94x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

(TMO) delivered a total return of +1. 4%, compared to -74. 4% for NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TMO returned +219. 0% versus ILMN's +18. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.

(BIO) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 74β versus NeoGenomics, Inc. 's 1. 37β — meaning NEO is approximately 86% more volatile than BIO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (BIO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 21% versus 94% for Illumina, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), NeoGenomics, Inc.

(NEO) is pulling ahead at 10. 1% versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Illumina, Inc. grew EPS 170. 9% year-over-year, compared to -35. 5% for NeoGenomics, 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.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.

(BIO) is the more profitable company, earning 29. 4% net margin versus -14. 9% for NeoGenomics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 29. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: A leads at 21. 3% versus -9. 1% for NEO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ILMN leads at 66. 7%, 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.

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, Agilent Technologies, Inc. (A) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 46x versus Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 's 8. 94x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (TMO) trades at 18. 9x forward P/E versus 61. 9x for NeoGenomics, Inc. — 43. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NEO: 70. 4% to $19. 00.

In this comparison, A (0.

8% yield), TMO (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. NEO, BIO, ILMN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Agilent Technologies, Inc.

(A) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 06), 0. 8% yield, +206. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (A: +206. 2%, 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.

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: NEO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TMO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; A is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BIO is a small-cap deep-value stock; ILMN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. A pays a dividend while NEO, TMO, BIO, ILMN 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.