Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
QNCX vs RARE vs BMRN vs FOLD
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
QNCX vs RARE vs BMRN vs FOLD — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $7M | $2.57B | $10.41B | $4.55B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $669M | $3.24B | $634M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-84M | $-609M | $269M | $-27M |
| Gross Margin | — | 83.6% | 75.9% | 87.9% |
| Operating Margin | — | -83.9% | 13.8% | 5.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 12.6x | 40.6x |
| Total Debt | $18M | $1.28B | $643M | $483M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $434M | $1.31B | $214M |
QNCX vs RARE vs BMRN vs FOLD — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quince Therapeutics… (QNCX) | 100 | 0.3 | -99.7% |
| Ultragenyx Pharmace… (RARE) | 100 | 38.2 | -61.8% |
| BioMarin Pharmaceut… (BMRN) | 100 | 50.8 | -49.2% |
| Amicus Therapeutics… (FOLD) | 100 | 115.9 | +15.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: QNCX vs RARE vs BMRN vs FOLD
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
QNCX lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
RARE is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 20.1%, EPS growth 7.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.8%
- 20.1% revenue growth vs QNCX's -48.0%
BMRN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.65, Low D/E 10.6%, current ratio 5.21x
- Lower P/E (12.6x vs 40.6x)
- 8.3% margin vs RARE's -91.0%
- 3.4% ROA vs QNCX's -78.5%, ROIC 7.4% vs -485.6%
FOLD is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- beta 0.63
- 119.2% 10Y total return vs BMRN's -35.6%
- Beta 0.63, current ratio 2.84x
- Beta 0.63 vs QNCX's 2.23
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 20.1% revenue growth vs QNCX's -48.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.6x vs 40.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 8.3% margin vs RARE's -91.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.63 vs QNCX's 2.23 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +137.9% vs QNCX's -87.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.4% ROA vs QNCX's -78.5%, ROIC 7.4% vs -485.6% |
QNCX vs RARE vs BMRN vs FOLD — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
QNCX vs RARE vs BMRN vs FOLD — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BMRN leads in 3 of 6 categories
FOLD leads 2 • QNCX leads 0 • RARE leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BMRN leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BMRN and QNCX operate at a comparable scale, with $3.2B and $0 in trailing revenue. BMRN is the more profitable business, keeping 8.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RARE's -91.0%. On growth, FOLD holds the edge at +23.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $669M | $3.2B | $634M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$50M | -$536M | $521M | $40M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$84M | -$609M | $269M | -$27M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$48M | -$487M | $767M | $30M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +83.6% | +75.9% | +87.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -83.9% | +13.8% | +5.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -91.0% | +8.3% | -4.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -72.8% | +23.7% | +4.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -2.4% | +2.8% | +23.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -167.9% | -17.2% | -43.2% | -89.0% |
Valuation Metrics
BMRN leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, BMRN's 15.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than FOLD's 114.9x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $7M | $2.6B | $10.4B | $4.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $20M | $3.4B | $9.7B | $4.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.08x | -4.48x | 30.07x | -164.85x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 12.60x | 40.62x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 15.89x | 114.88x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 3.82x | 3.23x | 7.17x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | — | 1.75x | 16.29x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 14.36x | 152.43x |
Profitability & Efficiency
BMRN leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BMRN delivers a 4.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $4 in annual profit, vs $-6 for RARE. BMRN carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FOLD's 1.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BMRN scores 5/9 vs QNCX's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -6.1% | +4.4% | -12.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -78.5% | -45.8% | +3.4% | -3.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -4.9% | -89.4% | +7.4% | +5.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -64.0% | -46.4% | +8.1% | +5.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | — | 0.11x | 1.76x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $13M | $842M | -$669M | $269M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $434M | $1.3B | $214M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $18M | $1.3B | $643M | $483M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -14.49x | 16.96x | 1.00x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FOLD leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FOLD five years ago would be worth $14,862 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $35 for QNCX. Over the past 12 months, FOLD leads with a +137.9% total return vs QNCX's -87.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FOLD at 6.0% vs QNCX's -57.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -95.7% | +10.7% | -9.0% | +1.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -87.5% | -21.8% | -8.8% | +137.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -92.0% | -44.5% | -43.6% | +19.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.6% | -77.2% | -30.4% | +48.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.6% | -59.4% | -35.6% | +119.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -57.0% | -17.8% | -17.4% | +6.0% |
Risk & Volatility
FOLD leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FOLD is the less volatile stock with a 0.63 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than QNCX's 2.23 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FOLD currently trades 99.9% from its 52-week high vs QNCX's 2.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.23x | 1.42x | 0.65x | 0.63x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $45.50 | $42.37 | $66.28 | $14.50 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.80 | $18.29 | $50.76 | $5.51 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +2.9% | +61.7% | +81.7% | +99.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 41.6 | 66.6 | 48.7 | 72.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 49.5M | 1.8M | 1.8M | 3.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RARE as "Buy", BMRN as "Buy", FOLD as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 97.1% upside for RARE (target: $52) vs 0.1% for FOLD (target: $15).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $51.50 | $89.64 | $14.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 33 | 41 | 24 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
BMRN leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). FOLD leads in 2 (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility).
QNCX vs RARE vs BMRN vs FOLD: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc.
(RARE) is the stronger pick with 20. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 12. 9% for BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN). BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN) offers the better valuation at 30. 1x trailing P/E (12. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. (RARE) a "Buy" — based on 33 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 — QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD?
On forward P/E, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
is actually cheaper at 12. 6x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD?
Over the past 5 years, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
(FOLD) delivered a total return of +48. 6%, compared to -99. 6% for Quince Therapeutics, Inc. (QNCX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FOLD returned +119. 2% versus QNCX's -99. 6%. 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 — QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
(FOLD) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 63β versus Quince Therapeutics, Inc. 's 2. 23β — meaning QNCX is approximately 254% more volatile than FOLD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 176% for Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc.
(RARE) is pulling ahead at 20. 1% versus 12. 9% for BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 51. 2% year-over-year, compared to -28. 2% for Quince Therapeutics, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FOLD leads at 24. 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 — QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD?
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
(BMRN) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus -85. 4% for Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BMRN leads at 16. 6% versus -79. 5% for RARE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FOLD leads at 87. 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 QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
(BMRN) trades at 12. 6x forward P/E versus 40. 6x for Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. — 28. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for RARE: 97. 1% to $51. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD?
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.
09Is QNCX or RARE or BMRN or FOLD better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
(FOLD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 63), +119. 2% 10Y return). Quince Therapeutics, Inc. (QNCX) carries a higher beta of 2. 23 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FOLD: +119. 2%, QNCX: -99. 6%), 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 QNCX and RARE and BMRN and FOLD?
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: QNCX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RARE is a small-cap high-growth stock; BMRN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; FOLD is a small-cap high-growth stock. 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.