Medical - Care Facilities
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
TOI vs ONCO vs CRVS vs AIOT vs IMVT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Communication Equipment
Biotechnology
TOI vs ONCO vs CRVS vs AIOT vs IMVT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Care Facilities | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Communication Equipment | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $5.41B | $654K | $1.00B | $574M | $6.90B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $546M | $735K | $0.00 | $436M | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-44M | $-10M | $-44M | $-32M | $-506M |
| Gross Margin | 14.8% | 79.6% | — | 55.2% | — |
| Operating Margin | -6.0% | -9.2% | — | 1.7% | — |
| Total Debt | $104M | $49K | $937K | $287M | $72K |
| Cash & Equiv. | $34M | $5M | $5M | $49M | $902M |
TOI vs ONCO vs CRVS vs AIOT vs IMVT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 24 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Oncology Instit… (TOI) | 100 | 1154.3 | +1054.3% |
| Onconetix, Inc. (ONCO) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| Corvus Pharmaceutic… (CRVS) | 100 | 655.5 | +555.5% |
| PowerFleet, Inc. (AIOT) | 100 | 92.3 | -7.7% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 127.3 | +27.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TOI vs ONCO vs CRVS vs AIOT vs IMVT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TOI lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
ONCO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.33
- Beta 1.33 vs AIOT's 2.71, lower leverage
CRVS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and momentum is your priority.
- 3.5% margin vs ONCO's -13.2%
- +181.4% vs ONCO's -99.7%
AIOT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 66.3%, EPS growth 60.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 42.2%
- 66.3% revenue growth vs ONCO's -67.7%
- 17.8% yield; 1-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
- -3.4% ROA vs IMVT's -62.2%
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 237.9% 10Y total return vs CRVS's -6.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.66, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 9.09x
- Beta 1.66, current ratio 9.09x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 66.3% revenue growth vs ONCO's -67.7% | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.5% margin vs ONCO's -13.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.33 vs AIOT's 2.71, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 17.8% yield; 1-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +181.4% vs ONCO's -99.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -3.4% ROA vs IMVT's -62.2% |
TOI vs ONCO vs CRVS vs AIOT vs IMVT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
TOI vs ONCO vs CRVS vs AIOT vs IMVT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AIOT leads in 3 of 6 categories
ONCO leads 1 • CRVS leads 1 • TOI leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AIOT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TOI and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $546M and $0 in trailing revenue. AIOT is the more profitable business, keeping -7.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ONCO's -13.2%. On growth, AIOT holds the edge at +47.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $546M | $735,198 | $0 | $436M | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$26M | -$7M | -$48M | $69M | -$532M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$44M | -$10M | -$44M | -$32M | -$506M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$26M | -$10M | -$35M | $3M | -$407M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +14.8% | +79.6% | — | +55.2% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -6.0% | -9.2% | — | +1.7% | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -8.0% | -13.2% | — | -7.4% | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -4.7% | -13.3% | — | +0.6% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +41.2% | -78.9% | — | +47.4% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +90.5% | +98.7% | -15.4% | -25.5% | -14.1% |
Valuation Metrics
ONCO leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5.4B | $653,669 | $1.0B | $574M | $6.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.5B | -$5M | $1000M | $813M | $6.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -9.83x | -0.22x | -22.51x | -9.81x | -12.14x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | 51.19x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 10.75x | 0.80x | — | 1.58x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.22x | 15.54x | 1.13x | 7.19x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
AIOT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AIOT delivers a -6.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-7 in annual profit, vs $-105 for ONCO. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AIOT's 0.64x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ONCO scores 5/9 vs IMVT's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -105.5% | -38.9% | -6.6% | -68.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -26.5% | -49.4% | -35.7% | -3.4% | -62.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -41.2% | -32.8% | -78.1% | -4.3% | — |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -33.7% | -49.4% | -90.2% | -5.1% | -68.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.00x | 0.02x | 0.64x | 0.00x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $70M | -$5M | -$4M | $238M | -$902M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $34M | $5M | $5M | $49M | $902M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $104M | $48,774 | $937,000 | $287M | $72,000 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -4.96x | -17.32x | -26.63x | 0.47x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CRVS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CRVS five years ago would be worth $42,156 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $0 for ONCO. Over the past 12 months, CRVS leads with a +181.4% total return vs ONCO's -99.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TOI at 111.1% vs ONCO's -98.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +44.7% | -98.7% | +63.0% | -19.6% | +29.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +100.4% | -99.7% | +181.4% | -11.0% | +110.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +841.3% | -100.0% | +255.1% | -11.5% | +55.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -47.4% | -100.0% | +321.6% | -11.5% | +213.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -45.3% | -100.0% | -6.1% | -11.5% | +237.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +111.1% | -98.0% | +52.6% | -4.0% | +15.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TOI and ONCO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ONCO is the less volatile stock with a 1.33 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AIOT's 2.71 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TOI currently trades 95.2% from its 52-week high vs ONCO's 0.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.95x | 1.33x | 2.02x | 2.71x | 1.66x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.58 | $361.50 | $26.95 | $5.88 | $36.27 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.02 | $0.91 | $3.55 | $2.77 | $14.32 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +95.2% | +0.3% | +44.3% | +71.8% | +92.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 65.3 | 25.1 | 39.1 | 65.9 | 57.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.6M | 1.4M | 1.4M | 1.5M | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
AIOT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TOI as "Buy", CRVS as "Buy", AIOT as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 178.0% upside for CRVS (target: $33) vs 29.9% for IMVT (target: $44). AIOT is the only dividend payer here at 17.85% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | — | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $8.00 | — | $33.17 | $8.00 | $43.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 5 | — | 13 | 5 | 23 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +17.8% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.75 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.5% | 0.0% |
AIOT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ONCO leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
TOI vs ONCO vs CRVS vs AIOT vs IMVT: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TOI or ONCO or CRVS or AIOT or IMVT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Oncology Institute, Inc.
(TOI) is the stronger pick with 27. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -67. 7% for Onconetix, Inc. (ONCO). Analysts rate The Oncology Institute, Inc. (TOI) a "Buy" — based on 5 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 — TOI or ONCO or CRVS or AIOT or IMVT?
Over the past 5 years, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(CRVS) delivered a total return of +321. 6%, compared to -100. 0% for Onconetix, Inc. (ONCO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +237. 9% versus ONCO'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.
03Which is safer — TOI or ONCO or CRVS or AIOT or IMVT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Onconetix, Inc.
(ONCO) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 33β versus PowerFleet, Inc. 's 2. 71β — meaning AIOT is approximately 104% more volatile than ONCO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 64% for PowerFleet, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — TOI or ONCO or CRVS or AIOT or IMVT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Oncology Institute, Inc.
(TOI) is pulling ahead at 27. 8% versus -67. 7% for Onconetix, Inc. (ONCO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Onconetix, Inc. grew EPS 99. 1% year-over-year, compared to -1. 5% for Immunovant, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AIOT leads at 42. 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.
05Which has better profit margins — TOI or ONCO or CRVS or AIOT or IMVT?
Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(CRVS) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -1721. 0% for Onconetix, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CRVS leads at 0. 0% versus -778. 2% for ONCO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ONCO leads at 77. 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — TOI or ONCO or CRVS or AIOT or IMVT?
In this comparison, AIOT (17.
8% yield) pays a dividend. TOI, ONCO, CRVS, IMVT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is TOI or ONCO or CRVS or AIOT or IMVT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Onconetix, Inc.
(ONCO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (CRVS) carries a higher beta of 2. 02 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ONCO: -100. 0%, CRVS: -6. 1%), 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.
08What are the main differences between TOI and ONCO and CRVS and AIOT and IMVT?
These companies operate in different sectors (TOI (Healthcare) and ONCO (Healthcare) and CRVS (Healthcare) and AIOT (Technology) and IMVT (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: TOI is a small-cap high-growth stock; ONCO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CRVS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AIOT is a small-cap income-oriented stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock. AIOT pays a dividend while TOI, ONCO, CRVS, 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.