Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
RGC vs DBVT vs HALO vs IMVT vs ABBV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - General
RGC vs DBVT vs HALO vs IMVT vs ABBV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $15.56B | $1712.35T | $7.68B | $5.53B | $358.42B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $0.00 | $1.40B | $0.00 | $61.16B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-5M | $-168M | $317M | $-464M | $4.23B |
| Gross Margin | — | — | 81.9% | — | 70.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | — | 58.4% | — | 26.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 8.1x | — | 14.3x |
| Total Debt | $86K | $22M | $0.00 | $98K | $69.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $3M | $194M | $134M | $714M | $5.23B |
RGC vs DBVT vs HALO vs IMVT vs ABBV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regencell Bioscienc… (RGC) | 100 | 13041.9 | +12941.9% |
| DBV Technologies S.… (DBVT) | 100 | 38.4 | -61.6% |
| Halozyme Therapeuti… (HALO) | 100 | 157.7 | +57.7% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 260.2 | +160.2% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 174.2 | +74.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RGC vs DBVT vs HALO vs IMVT vs ABBV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RGC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 100.0%, EPS growth 26.9%
- 119.3% 10Y total return vs ABBV's 295.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.72, Low D/E 1.0%, current ratio 41.92x
- Beta 0.72, current ratio 41.92x
DBVT lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
HALO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Lower P/E (8.1x vs 14.3x)
- 22.7% margin vs DBVT's 0.3%
- 12.5% ROA vs DBVT's -89.0%
Among these 5 stocks, IMVT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
ABBV ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 0.34, yield 3.2%
- Beta 0.34 vs IMVT's 1.37
- 3.2% yield; 13-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 100.0% revenue growth vs DBVT's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.1x vs 14.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 22.7% margin vs DBVT's 0.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.34 vs IMVT's 1.37 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield; 13-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +5.3% vs HALO's -7.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.5% ROA vs DBVT's -89.0% |
RGC vs DBVT vs HALO vs IMVT vs ABBV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
RGC vs DBVT vs HALO vs IMVT vs ABBV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HALO leads in 3 of 6 categories
RGC leads 1 • ABBV leads 1 • DBVT leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HALO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $61.2B and $0 in trailing revenue. HALO is the more profitable business, keeping 22.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ABBV's 6.9%. On growth, HALO holds the edge at +51.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $0 | $1.4B | $0 | $61.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$4M | -$112M | $945M | -$487M | $24.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$5M | -$168M | $317M | -$464M | $4.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$7M | -$151M | $645M | -$423M | $18.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | +81.9% | — | +70.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | — | +58.4% | — | +26.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | — | +22.7% | — | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | — | +46.2% | — | +30.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | +51.6% | — | +10.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +91.5% | -2.1% | +19.7% | +57.4% |
Valuation Metrics
HALO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 25.5x trailing earnings, HALO trades at a 70% valuation discount to ABBV's 85.5x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, HALO's 8.3x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ABBV's 15.0x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $15.6B | $1712.35T | $7.7B | $5.5B | $358.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $15.6B | $1712.35T | $7.5B | $4.8B | $422.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3617.24x | -0.76x | 25.46x | -9.97x | 85.50x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 8.09x | — | 14.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.11x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 8.34x | — | 14.96x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | — | 5.50x | — | 5.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1893.39x | 0.66x | 165.47x | 5.83x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 11.91x | — | 20.12x |
Profitability & Efficiency
HALO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV delivers a 62.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $62 in annual profit, vs $-130 for DBVT. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to DBVT's 0.13x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ABBV scores 6/9 vs IMVT's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -67.0% | -130.2% | +6.5% | -47.1% | +62.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -60.2% | -89.0% | +12.5% | -44.1% | +3.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -43.8% | — | +73.4% | — | +23.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -46.8% | -145.7% | +38.2% | -66.1% | +21.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.01x | 0.13x | — | 0.00x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$3M | -$172M | -$134M | -$714M | $63.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3M | $194M | $134M | $714M | $5.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $85,741 | $22M | $0 | $98,000 | $69.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -189.82x | 46.08x | — | 3.28x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RGC leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RGC five years ago would be worth $1,138,979 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,090 for DBVT. Over the past 12 months, RGC leads with a +529.4% total return vs HALO's -7.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RGC at 2.6% vs DBVT's 6.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +53.2% | +4.9% | -7.3% | +5.1% | -10.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +529.4% | +110.4% | -7.1% | +96.1% | +11.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +4525.9% | +19.7% | +115.3% | +40.9% | +50.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +11289.8% | -69.1% | +37.0% | +62.4% | +101.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +11926.8% | -87.0% | +570.7% | +173.6% | +295.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +2.6% | +6.2% | +29.1% | +12.1% | +14.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — IMVT and ABBV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABBV is the less volatile stock with a 0.34 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than IMVT's 1.37 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMVT currently trades 90.5% from its 52-week high vs RGC's 37.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.72x | 1.26x | 0.56x | 1.37x | 0.34x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $83.60 | $26.18 | $82.22 | $30.09 | $244.81 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.93 | $7.53 | $47.50 | $13.36 | $176.57 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +37.6% | +76.3% | +79.3% | +90.5% | +82.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.5 | 48.1 | 52.4 | 60.2 | 46.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 139K | 252K | 1.4M | 1.4M | 5.8M |
Analyst Outlook
ABBV leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RGC as "Hold", DBVT as "Buy", HALO as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 131.8% upside for DBVT (target: $46) vs 20.2% for HALO (target: $78). ABBV is the only dividend payer here at 3.24% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $46.33 | $78.33 | $45.50 | $256.64 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | 15 | 27 | 23 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +3.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | — | — | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $6.57 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +4.5% | 0.0% | +0.3% |
HALO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). RGC leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
RGC vs DBVT vs HALO vs IMVT vs ABBV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
(HALO) is the stronger pick with 37. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 8. 6% for AbbVie Inc. (ABBV). Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. (HALO) offers the better valuation at 25. 5x trailing P/E (8. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate DBV Technologies S. A. (DBVT) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV?
On trailing P/E, Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
(HALO) is the cheapest at 25. 5x versus AbbVie Inc. at 85. 5x. On forward P/E, Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 1x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV?
Over the past 5 years, Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited (RGC) delivered a total return of +112.
9%, compared to -69. 1% for DBV Technologies S. A. (DBVT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RGC returned +119. 3% versus DBVT's -87. 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 — RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 34β versus Immunovant, Inc. 's 1. 37β — meaning IMVT is approximately 306% more volatile than ABBV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 13% for DBV Technologies S. A. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
(HALO) is pulling ahead at 37. 6% versus 8. 6% for AbbVie Inc. (ABBV). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited grew EPS 26. 9% year-over-year, compared to -347. 5% for DBV Technologies S. A.. Over a 3-year CAGR, HALO leads at 28. 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 — RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV?
Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
(HALO) is the more profitable company, earning 22. 7% net margin versus 0. 0% for Immunovant, Inc. — meaning it keeps 22. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HALO leads at 58. 4% versus 0. 0% for IMVT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HALO leads at 78. 1%, 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 RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
(HALO) trades at 8. 1x forward P/E versus 14. 3x for AbbVie Inc. — 6. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for DBVT: 131. 8% to $46. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV?
In this comparison, ABBV (3.
2% yield) pays a dividend. RGC, DBVT, HALO, IMVT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RGC or DBVT or HALO or IMVT or ABBV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 34), 3. 2% yield, +295. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABBV: +295. 5%, DBVT: -87. 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 RGC and DBVT and HALO and IMVT and ABBV?
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: RGC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; DBVT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; HALO is a small-cap high-growth stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ABBV is a large-cap income-oriented stock. ABBV pays a dividend while RGC, DBVT, HALO, IMVT 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.