Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
SRZN vs RCUS vs ARQT vs IMVT vs KYMR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
SRZN vs RCUS vs ARQT vs IMVT vs KYMR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $230M | $2.50B | $2.58B | $5.53B | $6.91B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $7M | $236M | $416M | $0.00 | $51M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-215M | $-369M | $-2M | $-464M | $-315M |
| Gross Margin | 32.7% | 90.7% | 90.9% | — | 33.2% |
| Operating Margin | -5.7% | -168.6% | 0.8% | — | -7.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 77.6x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $7M | $99M | $6M | $98K | $82M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $89M | $222M | $43M | $714M | $357M |
SRZN vs RCUS vs ARQT vs IMVT vs KYMR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jan 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrozen, Inc. (SRZN) | 100 | 19.2 | -80.8% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 71.4 | -28.6% |
| Arcutis Biotherapeu… (ARQT) | 100 | 75.7 | -24.3% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 69.7 | -30.3% |
| Kymera Therapeutics… (KYMR) | 100 | 136.6 | +36.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SRZN vs RCUS vs ARQT vs IMVT vs KYMR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SRZN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- beta 0.76
- Beta 0.76, current ratio 9.22x
- Beta 0.76 vs RCUS's 1.95
- +232.4% vs ARQT's +50.8%
RCUS lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
ARQT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 91.3%, EPS growth 88.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 367.3%
- 91.3% revenue growth vs SRZN's -67.4%
- -0.6% ROA vs SRZN's -206.7%
IMVT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 173.6% 10Y total return vs KYMR's 154.4%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.37, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 11.16x
- 3.2% margin vs SRZN's -28.7%
Among these 5 stocks, KYMR doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 91.3% revenue growth vs SRZN's -67.4% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.2% margin vs SRZN's -28.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.76 vs RCUS's 1.95 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +232.4% vs ARQT's +50.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -0.6% ROA vs SRZN's -206.7% |
SRZN vs RCUS vs ARQT vs IMVT vs KYMR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
SRZN vs RCUS vs ARQT vs IMVT vs KYMR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ARQT leads in 3 of 6 categories
SRZN leads 1 • RCUS leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • KYMR leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ARQT leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ARQT and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $416M and $0 in trailing revenue. ARQT is the more profitable business, keeping -0.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SRZN's -28.7%. On growth, SRZN holds the edge at +4.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $7M | $236M | $416M | $0 | $51M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$43M | -$391M | $6M | -$487M | -$352M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$215M | -$369M | -$2M | -$464M | -$315M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$34M | -$489M | $27M | -$423M | -$244M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +32.7% | +90.7% | +90.9% | — | +33.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -5.7% | -168.6% | +0.8% | — | -7.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -28.7% | -156.4% | -0.6% | — | -6.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -4.5% | -2.1% | +6.5% | — | -4.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +4.1% | -39.3% | +60.1% | — | +55.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -56.8% | +10.5% | +55.0% | +19.7% | +13.4% |
Valuation Metrics
ARQT leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $230M | $2.5B | $2.6B | $5.5B | $6.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $147M | $2.4B | $2.5B | $4.8B | $6.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.95x | -7.54x | -158.92x | -9.97x | -22.93x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 77.64x | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 66.13x | 10.11x | 6.87x | — | 176.26x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 4.22x | 13.87x | 5.83x | 4.52x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
ARQT leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ARQT delivers a -1.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-1 in annual profit, vs $-69 for RCUS. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to RCUS's 0.16x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ARQT scores 4/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -69.0% | -1.4% | -47.1% | -25.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.1% | -35.3% | -0.6% | -44.1% | -22.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -64.1% | -5.2% | — | -24.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -64.8% | -42.1% | -4.3% | -66.1% | -27.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.16x | 0.03x | 0.00x | 0.05x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$83M | -$123M | -$37M | -$714M | -$275M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $89M | $222M | $43M | $714M | $357M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $7M | $99M | $6M | $98,000 | $82M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -13.38x | 2.08x | — | -2119.53x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SRZN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in KYMR five years ago would be worth $19,212 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,081 for SRZN. Over the past 12 months, SRZN leads with a +232.4% total return vs ARQT's +50.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SRZN at 51.3% vs RCUS's 7.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +42.7% | +6.5% | -28.8% | +5.1% | +16.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +232.4% | +209.6% | +50.8% | +96.1% | +190.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +246.3% | +24.9% | +44.9% | +40.9% | +205.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -79.2% | -18.6% | -39.5% | +62.4% | +92.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -79.7% | +45.9% | -5.2% | +173.6% | +154.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +51.3% | +7.7% | +13.2% | +12.1% | +45.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SRZN and IMVT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SRZN is the less volatile stock with a 0.76 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RCUS's 1.95 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 ARQT's 65.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.76x | 1.95x | 1.48x | 1.37x | 1.15x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $35.00 | $28.72 | $31.77 | $30.09 | $103.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.90 | $7.06 | $12.42 | $13.36 | $28.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +87.9% | +86.3% | +65.0% | +90.5% | +82.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.5 | 60.5 | 54.3 | 60.2 | 54.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 108K | 1.2M | 1.3M | 1.4M | 602K |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SRZN as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy", ARQT as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", KYMR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 71.8% upside for ARQT (target: $36) vs 21.0% for RCUS (target: $30).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $40.00 | $30.00 | $35.50 | $45.50 | $117.06 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 18 | 12 | 23 | 26 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
ARQT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). SRZN leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
SRZN vs RCUS vs ARQT vs IMVT vs KYMR: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc.
(ARQT) is the stronger pick with 91. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -67. 4% for Surrozen, Inc. (SRZN). Analysts rate Surrozen, Inc. (SRZN) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 is the better long-term investment — SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR?
Over the past 5 years, Kymera Therapeutics, Inc.
(KYMR) delivered a total return of +92. 1%, compared to -79. 2% for Surrozen, Inc. (SRZN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +173. 6% versus SRZN's -79. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Surrozen, Inc.
(SRZN) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 76β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 95β — meaning RCUS is approximately 158% more volatile than SRZN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 16% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc.
(ARQT) is pulling ahead at 91. 3% versus -67. 4% for Surrozen, Inc. (SRZN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 88. 8% year-over-year, compared to -49. 4% for Surrozen, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ARQT leads at 367. 3% 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.
05Which has better profit margins — SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR?
Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -69. 6% for Surrozen, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IMVT leads at 0. 0% versus -1210. 6% for SRZN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KYMR leads at 100. 0%, 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.
06Is SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ARQT: 71.
8% to $35. 50.
07Which pays a better dividend — SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR?
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.
08Is SRZN or RCUS or ARQT or IMVT or KYMR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Surrozen, Inc.
(SRZN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 76)). Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS) carries a higher beta of 1. 95 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (SRZN: -79. 7%, RCUS: +45. 9%), 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.
09What are the main differences between SRZN and RCUS and ARQT and IMVT and KYMR?
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: SRZN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RCUS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ARQT is a small-cap high-growth stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; KYMR 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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.