Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NMRA vs ACAD vs KO vs INVA vs AXSM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
NMRA vs ACAD vs KO vs INVA vs AXSM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $330M | $3.61B | $355.61B | $1.68B | $13.13B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $1.10B | $49.28B | $424M | $708M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-222M | $376M | $13.70B | $504M | $-188M |
| Gross Margin | — | 91.5% | 61.7% | 76.2% | 92.6% |
| Operating Margin | — | 7.4% | 29.3% | 14.8% | -24.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | 54.2x | 25.3x | 6.4x | — |
| Total Debt | $477K | $52M | $45.49B | $269M | $241M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $183M | $178M | $10.27B | $551M | $323M |
NMRA vs ACAD vs KO vs INVA vs AXSM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 23 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neumora Therapeutic… (NMRA) | 100 | 12.6 | -87.4% |
| ACADIA Pharmaceutic… (ACAD) | 100 | 101.2 | +1.2% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 147.6 | +47.6% |
| Innoviva, Inc. (INVA) | 100 | 175.1 | +75.1% |
| Axsome Therapeutics… (AXSM) | 100 | 365.1 | +265.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NMRA vs ACAD vs KO vs INVA vs AXSM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NMRA lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, ACAD doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
KO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
INVA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 0.06
- Lower volatility, beta 0.06, Low D/E 22.9%, current ratio 14.64x
- PEG 0.62 vs KO's 2.26
- Beta 0.06, current ratio 14.64x
AXSM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 65.5%, EPS growth 38.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 133.7%
- 35.5% 10Y total return vs KO's 121.1%
- 65.5% revenue growth vs KO's 1.9%
- +140.2% vs ACAD's -3.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 65.5% revenue growth vs KO's 1.9% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 118.9% margin vs AXSM's -26.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.06 vs NMRA's 1.90 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +140.2% vs ACAD's -3.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 32.4% ROA vs NMRA's -119.2%, ROIC 14.2% vs -5.3% |
NMRA vs ACAD vs KO vs INVA vs AXSM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NMRA vs ACAD vs KO vs INVA vs AXSM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
INVA leads in 3 of 6 categories
AXSM leads 1 • KO leads 1 • NMRA leads 0 • ACAD leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
INVA leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO and NMRA operate at a comparable scale, with $49.3B and $0 in trailing revenue. INVA is the more profitable business, keeping 118.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AXSM's -26.6%. On growth, AXSM holds the edge at +57.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $1.1B | $49.3B | $424M | $708M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$223M | $96M | $15.5B | $86M | -$167M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$222M | $376M | $13.7B | $504M | -$188M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$193M | $212M | $12.6B | $181M | -$71M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +91.5% | +61.7% | +76.2% | +92.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +7.4% | +29.3% | +14.8% | -24.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +34.3% | +27.8% | +118.9% | -26.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +19.4% | +25.5% | +42.6% | -10.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +9.7% | +12.1% | +10.6% | +57.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +28.6% | -81.8% | +18.2% | +4.0% | -3.3% |
Valuation Metrics
INVA leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.9x trailing earnings, INVA trades at a 75% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), INVA offers better value at 0.67x vs KO's 2.43x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $330M | $3.6B | $355.6B | $1.7B | $13.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $148M | $3.5B | $390.8B | $1.4B | $13.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.23x | 9.21x | 27.18x | 6.89x | -69.34x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 54.20x | 25.27x | 6.36x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x | 0.67x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 25.09x | 26.39x | 6.85x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 3.37x | 7.42x | 3.95x | 20.57x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.80x | 2.94x | 10.40x | 1.64x | 143.77x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 34.34x | 67.15x | 8.57x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
INVA leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
INVA delivers a 47.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $48 in annual profit, vs $-3 for AXSM. NMRA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AXSM's 2.73x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs NMRA's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -181.7% | +35.6% | +41.1% | +47.6% | -2.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -119.2% | +26.2% | +13.1% | +32.4% | -27.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -5.3% | +10.0% | +15.8% | +14.2% | -19.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -108.2% | +10.1% | +17.3% | +12.4% | -52.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.00x | 0.04x | 1.33x | 0.23x | 2.73x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$182M | -$126M | $35.2B | -$282M | -$82M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $183M | $178M | $10.3B | $551M | $323M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $477,000 | $52M | $45.5B | $269M | $241M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -47.51x | — | 10.70x | 63.45x | -34.13x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AXSM leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AXSM five years ago would be worth $37,792 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,095 for NMRA. Over the past 12 months, AXSM leads with a +140.2% total return vs ACAD's -3.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AXSM at 50.5% vs NMRA's -52.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +7.2% | -19.3% | +20.3% | +14.4% | +42.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +98.3% | -3.0% | +17.2% | +6.3% | +140.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -89.0% | -14.3% | +47.0% | +69.7% | +241.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -89.0% | -22.6% | +65.6% | +77.9% | +277.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -89.0% | -44.6% | +121.1% | +108.1% | +3550.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -52.2% | -5.0% | +13.7% | +19.3% | +50.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — KO and AXSM each lead in 1 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 NMRA's 1.90 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AXSM currently trades 98.9% from its 52-week high vs NMRA's 48.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.90x | 1.10x | -0.20x | 0.06x | 0.63x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.65 | $27.81 | $84.04 | $25.15 | $257.93 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.72 | $19.69 | $65.35 | $16.52 | $96.09 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +48.8% | +75.8% | +98.3% | +90.4% | +98.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.3 | 47.9 | 60.6 | 50.6 | 73.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.2M | 1.4M | 12.7M | 660K | 690K |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NMRA as "Buy", ACAD as "Buy", KO as "Buy", INVA as "Buy", AXSM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 293.3% upside for NMRA (target: $7) vs 2.8% for AXSM (target: $262). 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 | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.00 | $34.78 | $86.13 | $40.00 | $262.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 37 | 48 | 10 | 25 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 56 | 2 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +0.3% | 0.0% |
INVA leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). AXSM leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
NMRA vs ACAD vs KO vs INVA vs AXSM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
(AXSM) is the stronger pick with 65. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). Innoviva, Inc. (INVA) offers the better valuation at 6. 9x trailing P/E (6. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock (NMRA) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 — NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM?
On trailing P/E, Innoviva, Inc.
(INVA) is the cheapest at 6. 9x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. On forward P/E, Innoviva, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Innoviva, Inc. wins at 0. 62x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM?
Over the past 5 years, Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
(AXSM) delivered a total return of +277. 9%, compared to -89. 0% for Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock (NMRA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AXSM returned +35. 5% versus NMRA's -89. 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 — NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock's 1. 90β — meaning NMRA is approximately -1049% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock (NMRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 3% for Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
(AXSM) is pulling ahead at 65. 5% versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Innoviva, Inc. grew EPS 816. 7% year-over-year, compared to 5. 2% for Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock. Over a 3-year CAGR, AXSM leads at 133. 7% 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 — NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM?
Innoviva, Inc.
(INVA) is the more profitable company, earning 63. 8% net margin versus -28. 7% for Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 63. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: INVA leads at 38. 5% versus -26. 5% for AXSM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AXSM leads at 92. 6%, 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 NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM 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, Innoviva, Inc. (INVA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Innoviva, Inc. (INVA) trades at 6. 4x forward P/E versus 54. 2x for ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. — 47. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NMRA: 293. 3% to $7. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. NMRA, ACAD, INVA, AXSM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NMRA or ACAD or KO or INVA or AXSM 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). Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. Common Stock (NMRA) carries a higher beta of 1. 90 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, NMRA: -89. 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 NMRA and ACAD and KO and INVA and AXSM?
These companies operate in different sectors (NMRA (Healthcare) and ACAD (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and INVA (Healthcare) and AXSM (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: NMRA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ACAD is a small-cap deep-value stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; INVA is a small-cap high-growth stock; AXSM is a mid-cap high-growth stock. KO pays a dividend while NMRA, ACAD, INVA, AXSM 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.