Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TNXP vs INVA vs AXSM vs PRGO vs MCK
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Medical - Distribution
TNXP vs INVA vs AXSM vs PRGO vs MCK — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Medical - Distribution |
| Market Cap | $31M | $1.93B | $11.33B | $1.61B | $92.15B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $10M | $424M | $708M | $4.18B | $403.43B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-99M | $504M | $-188M | $-1.82B | $4.76B |
| Gross Margin | 34.3% | 76.2% | 92.6% | 34.2% | 3.6% |
| Operating Margin | -9.7% | 14.8% | -24.8% | -4.1% | 1.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 11.9x | — | 5.6x | 19.3x |
| Total Debt | $5M | $269M | $241M | $3.97B | $7.39B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $99M | $551M | $323M | $532M | $5.69B |
TNXP vs INVA vs AXSM vs PRGO vs MCK — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tonix Pharmaceutica… (TNXP) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| Innoviva, Inc. (INVA) | 100 | 163.2 | +63.2% |
| Axsome Therapeutics… (AXSM) | 100 | 285.9 | +185.9% |
| Perrigo Company plc (PRGO) | 100 | 21.4 | -78.6% |
| McKesson Corporation (MCK) | 100 | 474.1 | +374.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TNXP vs INVA vs AXSM vs PRGO vs MCK
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, TNXP doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
INVA has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.13, Low D/E 22.9%, current ratio 14.64x
- 118.9% margin vs TNXP's -9.6%
- 32.4% ROA vs TNXP's -39.3%, ROIC 14.2% vs -150.3%
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%
- 18.9% 10Y total return vs MCK's 348.1%
- 65.5% revenue growth vs PRGO's -2.8%
- +98.5% vs PRGO's -51.2%
PRGO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for defensive.
- Beta 1.18, yield 9.8%, current ratio 2.76x
- Better valuation composite
- 9.8% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs MCK's 0.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
MCK is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 17 yrs, beta 0.04, yield 0.4%
- PEG 0.49 vs INVA's 1.15
- Beta 0.04 vs TNXP's 3.21
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 65.5% revenue growth vs PRGO's -2.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 118.9% margin vs TNXP's -9.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.04 vs TNXP's 3.21 | |
| Dividends | 9.8% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs MCK's 0.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +98.5% vs PRGO's -51.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 32.4% ROA vs TNXP's -39.3%, ROIC 14.2% vs -150.3% |
TNXP vs INVA vs AXSM vs PRGO vs MCK — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
TNXP vs INVA vs AXSM vs PRGO vs MCK — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
INVA leads in 1 of 6 categories
MCK leads 1 • AXSM leads 1 • TNXP leads 0 • PRGO leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
INVA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCK is the larger business by revenue, generating $403.4B annually — 39171.8x TNXP's $10M. INVA is the more profitable business, keeping 118.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TNXP's -9.6%. On growth, AXSM holds the edge at +57.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $10M | $424M | $708M | $4.2B | $403.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$98M | $86M | -$167M | $58M | $6.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$99M | $504M | -$188M | -$1.8B | $4.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$78M | $181M | -$71M | $108M | $6.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +34.3% | +76.2% | +92.6% | +34.2% | +3.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -9.7% | +14.8% | -24.8% | -4.1% | +1.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -9.6% | +118.9% | -26.6% | -43.5% | +1.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -7.6% | +42.8% | -10.0% | +2.6% | +1.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +16.6% | +10.6% | +57.4% | -7.2% | +6.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -14.6% | +4.0% | -3.3% | -56.4% | +37.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — INVA and PRGO each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.9x trailing earnings, INVA trades at a 76% valuation discount to MCK's 29.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), INVA offers better value at 0.67x vs MCK's 0.75x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $31M | $1.9B | $11.3B | $1.6B | $92.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$63M | $1.7B | $11.2B | $5.1B | $93.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.08x | 6.91x | -59.81x | -1.14x | 29.25x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 11.91x | — | 5.56x | 19.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.67x | — | — | 0.75x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 8.10x | — | 7.42x | 18.74x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.05x | 4.55x | 17.74x | 0.38x | 0.26x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.22x | 1.65x | 124.01x | 0.55x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 9.88x | — | 11.12x | 17.63x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK delivers a 3.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $3 in annual profit, vs $-3 for AXSM. TNXP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AXSM's 2.73x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCK scores 6/9 vs PRGO's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -42.9% | +46.5% | -2.6% | -50.7% | +3.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -39.3% | +32.4% | -27.8% | -19.8% | +5.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -150.3% | +14.2% | -19.1% | +3.7% | +5.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -97.6% | +12.4% | -52.1% | +4.3% | +30.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.04x | 0.23x | 2.73x | 1.35x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$93M | -$282M | -$82M | $3.4B | $1.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $99M | $551M | $323M | $532M | $5.7B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $5M | $269M | $241M | $4.0B | $7.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 63.45x | -34.13x | -7.20x | 33.79x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AXSM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MCK five years ago would be worth $38,689 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $0 for TNXP. Over the past 12 months, AXSM leads with a +98.5% total return vs PRGO's -51.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AXSM at 41.5% vs TNXP's -89.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -17.7% | +14.7% | +23.2% | -13.5% | -8.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -28.8% | +21.7% | +98.5% | -51.2% | +4.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | +95.2% | +183.2% | -58.1% | +106.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | +94.4% | +286.4% | -60.1% | +286.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | +94.9% | +1886.5% | -77.7% | +348.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -89.0% | +25.0% | +41.5% | -25.2% | +27.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AXSM and MCK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MCK is the less volatile stock with a 0.04 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TNXP's 3.21 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AXSM currently trades 94.2% from its 52-week high vs TNXP's 19.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.21x | 0.13x | 0.69x | 1.18x | 0.04x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $69.97 | $25.15 | $233.75 | $28.44 | $999.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $11.60 | $16.52 | $96.09 | $9.23 | $637.00 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +19.5% | +90.7% | +94.2% | +41.2% | +75.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.9 | 39.9 | 78.8 | 60.9 | 16.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 413K | 621K | 667K | 3.4M | 757K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PRGO and MCK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TNXP as "Buy", INVA as "Buy", AXSM as "Buy", PRGO as "Hold", MCK as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 70.6% upside for PRGO (target: $20) vs 2.6% for AXSM (target: $226). For income investors, PRGO offers the higher dividend yield at 9.81% vs MCK's 0.36%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $37.67 | $225.86 | $20.00 | $1006.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 10 | 25 | 36 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +9.8% | +0.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | — | 10 | 17 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $1.15 | $2.69 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.4% |
INVA leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). MCK leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
TNXP vs INVA vs AXSM vs PRGO vs MCK: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK 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 -2. 8% for Perrigo Company plc (PRGO). Innoviva, Inc. (INVA) offers the better valuation at 6. 9x trailing P/E (11. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (TNXP) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK?
On trailing P/E, Innoviva, Inc.
(INVA) is the cheapest at 6. 9x versus McKesson Corporation at 29. 2x. On forward P/E, Perrigo Company plc is actually cheaper at 5. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: McKesson Corporation wins at 0. 49x versus Innoviva, Inc. 's 1. 15x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK?
Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +286.
9%, compared to -100. 0% for Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (TNXP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AXSM returned +1886% versus TNXP's -100. 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 — TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
04β versus Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. 's 3. 21β — meaning TNXP is approximately 7352% more volatile than MCK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (TNXP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 3% for Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
(AXSM) is pulling ahead at 65. 5% versus -2. 8% for Perrigo Company plc (PRGO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Innoviva, Inc. grew EPS 816. 7% year-over-year, compared to -723. 2% for Perrigo Company plc. 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 — TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK?
Innoviva, Inc.
(INVA) is the more profitable company, earning 63. 8% net margin versus -1288. 3% for Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. — 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 -1354. 3% for TNXP. 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 TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK 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, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 49x versus Innoviva, Inc. 's 1. 15x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Perrigo Company plc (PRGO) trades at 5. 6x forward P/E versus 19. 3x for McKesson Corporation — 13. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PRGO: 70. 6% to $20. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK?
In this comparison, PRGO (9.
8% yield), MCK (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. TNXP, INVA, AXSM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TNXP or INVA or AXSM or PRGO or MCK better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
(AXSM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 69), +1886% 10Y return). Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (TNXP) carries a higher beta of 3. 21 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (AXSM: +1886%, TNXP: -100. 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 TNXP and INVA and AXSM and PRGO and MCK?
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: TNXP is a small-cap high-growth stock; INVA is a small-cap high-growth stock; AXSM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; PRGO is a small-cap income-oriented stock; MCK is a mid-cap high-growth stock. PRGO pays a dividend while TNXP, INVA, AXSM, MCK 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.