Medical - Instruments & Supplies
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
RGEN vs AZTA
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Instruments & Supplies
RGEN vs AZTA — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Instruments & Supplies | Medical - Instruments & Supplies |
| Market Cap | $7.13B | $855M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $763M | $597M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $51M | $-178M |
| Gross Margin | 51.5% | 44.6% |
| Operating Margin | 8.7% | -26.4% |
| Forward P/E | 64.3x | 23.7x |
| Total Debt | $690M | $111M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $566M | $280M |
RGEN vs AZTA — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repligen Corporation (RGEN) | 100 | 96.5 | -3.5% |
| Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) | 100 | 46.5 | -53.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RGEN vs AZTA
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RGEN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- beta 1.76
- Rev growth 16.4%, EPS growth 287.0%, 3Y rev CAGR -2.7%
- 369.1% 10Y total return vs AZTA's 123.4%
AZTA is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (23.7x vs 64.3x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.4% revenue growth vs AZTA's 3.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (23.7x vs 64.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.7% margin vs AZTA's -29.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.76 vs AZTA's 2.17 | |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither stock pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | -0.4% vs AZTA's -26.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.8% ROA vs AZTA's -8.8%, ROIC 2.2% vs -0.5% |
RGEN vs AZTA — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RGEN vs AZTA — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RGEN leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RGEN and AZTA operate at a comparable scale, with $763M and $597M in trailing revenue. RGEN is the more profitable business, keeping 6.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AZTA's -29.9%. On growth, RGEN holds the edge at +14.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $763M | $597M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $155M | -$115M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $51M | -$178M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $104M | $29M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +51.5% | +44.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +8.7% | -26.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.7% | -29.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +13.7% | +4.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +14.8% | +1.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +50.0% | -3.0% |
Valuation Metrics
AZTA leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, AZTA's 13.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than RGEN's 52.4x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $7.1B | $855M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7.3B | $687M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 147.01x | -15.22x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 64.26x | 23.68x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 52.45x | 13.75x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 9.66x | 1.44x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.40x | 0.49x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 75.94x | 22.32x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RGEN leads this category, winning 5 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RGEN delivers a 2.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $2 in annual profit, vs $-11 for AZTA. AZTA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to RGEN's 0.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RGEN scores 7/9 vs AZTA's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +2.5% | -10.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.8% | -8.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +2.2% | -0.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.2% | -0.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.33x | 0.06x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $124M | -$169M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $566M | $280M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $690M | $111M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.64x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RGEN leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RGEN five years ago would be worth $6,732 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,903 for AZTA. Over the past 12 months, RGEN leads with a -0.4% total return vs AZTA's -26.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RGEN at -6.9% vs AZTA's -25.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -23.1% | -44.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -0.4% | -26.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.3% | -59.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -32.7% | -81.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +369.1% | +123.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -6.9% | -25.8% |
Risk & Volatility
RGEN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
RGEN is the less volatile stock with a 1.76 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AZTA's 2.17 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. RGEN currently trades 71.9% from its 52-week high vs AZTA's 44.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.76x | 2.17x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $175.77 | $41.73 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $109.52 | $17.11 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +71.9% | +44.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.1 | 31.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 905K | 1.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates RGEN as "Buy" and AZTA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 140.5% upside for AZTA (target: $45) vs 32.9% for RGEN (target: $168).
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $168.00 | $44.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 23 | 12 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% |
RGEN leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). AZTA leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics).
RGEN vs AZTA: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RGEN or AZTA a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Repligen Corporation (RGEN) is the stronger pick with 16.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 6% for Azenta, Inc. (AZTA). Repligen Corporation (RGEN) offers the better valuation at 147. 0x trailing P/E (64. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Repligen Corporation (RGEN) a "Buy" — based on 23 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 — RGEN or AZTA?
On forward P/E, Azenta, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 23. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RGEN or AZTA?
Over the past 5 years, Repligen Corporation (RGEN) delivered a total return of -32.
7%, compared to -81. 0% for Azenta, Inc. (AZTA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RGEN returned +369. 1% versus AZTA's +123. 4%. 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 — RGEN or AZTA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Repligen Corporation (RGEN) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
76β versus Azenta, Inc. 's 2. 17β — meaning AZTA is approximately 24% more volatile than RGEN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 33% for Repligen Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RGEN or AZTA?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Repligen Corporation (RGEN) is pulling ahead at 16.
4% versus 3. 6% for Azenta, Inc. (AZTA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Repligen Corporation grew EPS 287. 0% year-over-year, compared to 60. 5% for Azenta, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AZTA leads at 2. 2% 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 — RGEN or AZTA?
Repligen Corporation (RGEN) is the more profitable company, earning 6.
6% net margin versus -9. 4% for Azenta, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RGEN leads at 8. 1% versus -1. 9% for AZTA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RGEN leads at 47. 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 RGEN or AZTA more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Azenta, Inc.
(AZTA) trades at 23. 7x forward P/E versus 64. 3x for Repligen Corporation — 40. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AZTA: 140. 5% to $44. 67.
08Which pays a better dividend — RGEN or AZTA?
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 RGEN or AZTA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Repligen Corporation (RGEN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+369.
1% 10Y return). Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) carries a higher beta of 2. 17 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (RGEN: +369. 1%, AZTA: +123. 4%), 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 RGEN and AZTA?
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: RGEN is a small-cap high-growth stock; AZTA is a small-cap quality compounder 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.